Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the poor majority have voted in Obama hoping he will redistribute the weath. You don't think the wealthy voted to have their money
redistributed do you??
Guess here is as good as any for my 5000.
I think the poor voted exactly as was intended. I think everybody voted as was intended, as they do. Sorry to sound cynical and it's not like I think Obama isn't a great "illusion of change" for the masses but I'd be a fool to think he's going to change the world all on his own and that his candidacy and election wasn't fully endorsed by the money makers, OR that it won't become more apparent as time wears on that he's as much a puppet as his predecessor. I mean let's face it, George W didn't screw the whole thing up on his own, he isn't that smart!
The wealthy didn't endorse Obama with the intention of having their wealth redistributed they endorsed the candidate that they felt could most easily inspire the masses to play the new game. I just think the outcome will be the same in terms of the average person.
As far as I can see it's all an "illusion", ultimately there will still be the top 100 wealthiest calling all the shots either blatantly or behind the scenes. Obama will just make it more palatable for a while.
"All law is the protection of property rights, all else is policy, and policy requires consent."
- Ganaposki's Axiom
As stated in the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men to (a) secure rights, and (b) govern those who consent.
The current socialist bureaucracy that rules America is based on consent fraudulently derived. That the majority of Americans are ignorant of their consent is evident.
If the government is not helping you secure your right to life, liberty or property, it's RULING you by your consent.
It matters not whether a majority can 'do' to a minority. It only matters if you gave consent... knowingly, willingly and intentionally. And you haven't given consent, you had better let "them" know it, before it's too late.
Why?
Because Americans are promised a republican form of government. And that's the form in which the PEOPLE are the sovereigns, and directly exercise that sovereignty. They are not promised a democracy, where the whole body of free citizens indirectly exercise sovereignty by majority vote.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;
[United States Constitution, Article 4, Section 4]
REPUBLICAN (form of) GOVERNMENT. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, ... directly,....
In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219;
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary
"People are supreme, not the state."
Waring v. the Mayor of Savannah, 60 GA at 93.
"The people of the state, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the king by his own prerogative."
Lansing v. Smith, (1829) 4 Wendell 9, (NY)
"At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country."
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463
If you were misled to surrender your sovereign prerogatives to become a socialist serf, begging for scraps from the government, perhaps you should start asking questions.
1. What law requires ALL AMERICANS to enroll in Social Security before they can work in their own country?
2. What law punishes ALL AMERICANS who do not participate in Social Security?
When you get your response from "your" public servants, let us all know.
No;the congress is setup so that teh minority actaully has alot of power.Then of course even within parties the thier are different points of view. Also there are the three baranches.But teh most limiting is the actaul congress having to run and m,any times this will lead to a conflict with the party platform such as we how see witht eh number of bluedog democrats after the last congessional elction.In many states that are more conservative you must be more to the right of center to win as a democrat. The party in power is always on the hot seat also.
...
The current socialist bureaucracy that rules America is based on consent fraudulently derived. That the majority of Americans are ignorant of their consent is evident.
...
Because Americans are promised a republican form of government. And that's the form in which the PEOPLE are the sovereigns, and directly exercise that sovereignty.
...
If you were misled to surrender your sovereign prerogatives to become a socialist serf, begging for scraps from the government, perhaps you should start asking questions.
...
Nice rant, now what exactly is your point?
The people ARE sovereign here in that we are not under anyone else, all are equal. And we do have a republic, its just a democratic one. And so since there is a democratic process somewhere in the long run it is still ruling by majority. We regular citizens choose to vote for elected officials that are supposed to represent our morals. Thus when they are in congress their votes represent us, so when congress votes on something whatever wins in theory has won because the most people support that issue.
And our government has 3 branches to keep everything in check, 2 of which legislative and executive, achieve power by democratic vote. Then we have the judicial which is in place to make sure our majority votes do not get out of control.
I do not get why anyone thinks we do not rule by majority and that morality is a factor in the creation of our laws.
I should add another point....if you look at state government, things are even more rule by majority generally. In many states, judges are elected as well, leading to parties achieving power by democratic vote in all 3 branches. Also state constitutions can be amended in some states with a simple majority vote of the people.
I am not an advocate of the concept of democracy or majority rule. Few individuals possess the knowledge or wisdom to make a wise choice, most are motivated by selfishness, a few with evil interests can too easily sway them, it takes too long to find out what the majority thinks, the future is too hard to predict, and a tyranny is a tyranny, no matter how many people collectively have power. I could probably think of some more reasons if I thought it was worth my time to do so.
However, I accept the fact that the my country is ruled accordingly, and I defend the principles of our Constitution as I understand them. They are summed up in 33 words in the Preamble. Those words do not dictate morality, but are there to be applied by men whom we can only hope are moral in and of themselves.
Good thoughts.
To me it's a bit more complex. I feel the majority has the right to rule as they see fit since 'to the victors go the spoils', but a few things are added to the mix:
1) Any majority power also has the inherent responsibility to ensure the minority is not trampled. It's a part of true leadership to work out adequate compromises and build bipartisan concensus when possible to strengthen the country.
2) Majority or not, the minority party still has rights and power to a cetain degree as our system has checks and balances. The hope is our system is that the minority still has an effective voice in government.
3) It still comes down to us, the voters. The democrats may have chipped away at secret balloting and has overtly thrown a couple of state elections recently, but the voters still have a say. We have seen twice, in dramatic ways, how the voters become so enraged and discouraged with the majority that they make wholesale changes to government. It was done once to the democrats and once to the republicans. That gives me continued hope in our system of government.
And our government has 3 branches to keep everything in check, 2 of which legislative and executive, achieve power by democratic vote. Then we have the judicial which is in place to make sure our majority votes do not get out of control.
Dude...you are sooo wrong on this part. We don't have two legislative branches and the executive branch does not vote. The three levels of government goes as follows:
Legislative (House of Representatives and Congress) - They are the ones that make the laws.
Judicial (Supreme Court) - They are the ones that interpret the laws.
Executive (President) - They are the ones that enforce the laws.
No where in there is there two legislative branches and executive branch that vote on how things should be done and the judicial branch does not 'keep the majority in check'; they simply interpret the constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ulnevrwalkalone
I do not get why anyone thinks we do not rule by majority and that morality is a factor in the creation of our laws.
If anything, we rule by emotionalism. That is the key factor that the writers of the constitution were antsy on. They did not want popular vote to swayed one way or the other simply by appealing to people's emotions (or morals for that matter). If you look, why do you think the Electoral College works as it does? It intentionally distorts the votes. If it was majority rule (a.k.a. mob rule) then we wouldn't have an Electoral College, or any of the checks and balances; if it truly was a mob rule, then we would've descended into anarchy a long time ago (remember, before democracy became popular it was commonly known as anarchy).
I don't remember exactly how the U.S. Constitution is amended, but isn't it done by a 2/3 vote of state legislatures after being proposed and voted on by Congress? It may require a supermajority, but it's the same concept.
The amendment must pass both houses of the US Congress by a supermajority (2/3 votes). Then, the amendment goes to the states, and while state legislatures ratify by a simple majority, 3/4 of the states must ratify in order for the amendment to pass. And no, supermajority is not "the same concept" as simple majority. To achieve supermajority, a lot more consensus is required than for simple majority, so reaching out to minority viewpoints is essential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
And of course a law changing scientific facts or attempting to change thoughts will not be effective, but is there ANY law attempting to change behavior that every single person will ever agree on? I think we would all agree that laws are meant to regulate behavior, not indisputable facts or people's thoughts.
Since laws regulate behavior, it's irrelevant to one's opinion of that behavior as right or wrong. You offer the existence of a law proscribing certain behavior as "proof" that that behavior is wrong, and that's the fallacy I was talking about -- because laws have been known to restrict behavior in ways that are inequitable and unjust, and at the same time, much truly despicable behavior is nevertheless legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok
I should add another point....if you look at state government, things are even more rule by majority generally. In many states, judges are elected as well, leading to parties achieving power by democratic vote in all 3 branches. Also state constitutions can be amended in some states with a simple majority vote of the people.
... and that majority rule has significant restrictions on it: (1) the US Constitution supercedes state constitutions on matters of fundamental rights and interstate activity; and (2) although judges are elected, voters don't get to try cases. On that last one, it would interest you to know that in ancient Athens, all court cases were tried by popular referendum, and that was an integral part of the Athenian democracy. These "juries", which numbered upwards of 500 members, adhered to neither substantive law, nor procedural requirements, nor rules of evidence -- they simply did whatever the majority decided, a true rule of the mob. That's not what happens when you elect judges. Judges may be more liberal or more conservative, but they decide hundreds of cases per year, and in every single case, a judge is free to rule based on his interpretation of the law, independent of the interference by the voting public. He may arguably be voted out of office if the general trend of his cases is not to the constituents' liking, but that represents a very limited power by voters over individual case outcomes.
This was started in another thread so I thought this needed its proper place. Basically the question started as can we have morality in laws. But it turned to whether or not 51% of a populace has the right to enforce its will on the other 49%.
Where did the 51% come from? Seems to me congess amounts to about .0001% of the majority and they dictate their will on the 300 million Americans who have no say in what they please to force on us.
The amendment must pass both houses of the US Congress by a supermajority (2/3 votes). Then, the amendment goes to the states, and while state legislatures ratify by a simple majority, 3/4 of the states must ratify in order for the amendment to pass. And no, supermajority is not "the same concept" as simple majority. To achieve supermajority, a lot more consensus is required than for simple majority, so reaching out to minority viewpoints is essential.
What I meant by "same concept" is that a group, albeit a larger one, is able to force its will on a smaller group. I didn't mean 50.00001%-49.99999%, but I meant any percentage in comparison with a smaller one. I agree that I should have worded that differently...and I do agree that there needs to be more than a simple majority forcing its will on everyone else, at least in the case of constitutional amendments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
Since laws regulate behavior, it's irrelevant to one's opinion of that behavior as right or wrong. You offer the existence of a law proscribing certain behavior as "proof" that that behavior is wrong, and that's the fallacy I was talking about -- because laws have been known to restrict behavior in ways that are inequitable and unjust, and at the same time, much truly despicable behavior is nevertheless legal.
I don't think I ever suggested that a law is proof that any behavior is wrong. At least that's not what I intended and I certainly don't believe that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
... and that majority rule has significant restrictions on it: (1) the US Constitution supercedes state constitutions on matters of fundamental rights and interstate activity; and (2) although judges are elected, voters don't get to try cases. On that last one, it would interest you to know that in ancient Athens, all court cases were tried by popular referendum, and that was an integral part of the Athenian democracy. These "juries", which numbered upwards of 500 members, adhered to neither substantive law, nor procedural requirements, nor rules of evidence -- they simply did whatever the majority decided, a true rule of the mob. That's not what happens when you elect judges. Judges may be more liberal or more conservative, but they decide hundreds of cases per year, and in every single case, a judge is free to rule based on his interpretation of the law, independent of the interference by the voting public. He may arguably be voted out of office if the general trend of his cases is not to the constituents' liking, but that represents a very limited power by voters over individual case outcomes.
I understand that judges are free to rule based on their interpretations of the law. However, I think the constituents play a huge role in their decisions....not necessarily in individual cases, but in so far as general trends. An example is that my state is extremely effective in carrying out the death penalty because the majority of voters support it. Our (state) appellate judges are elected by constitutents who largely support capital punishment and, therefore, it is far more rare here than in many other states for a new trial to be granted, for a new punishment hearing to be granted, etc.
Last edited by afoigrokerkok; 03-27-2009 at 12:59 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Majority of One
