| DISCUSSION | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
 |
He literally said "Lets get rid of the amendment that makes Senators Elected" | |||
 |
| |||
Zeus the Moose: This reads to me like the old "we're a Republic, not a Democracy" saw but with added threats
| ||||
Unfettered democracy produced gay marriage bans and denial of civil rights. One would think that progressive people realize than the concept of unalienable rights requires limitations on direct democracy. | ||||
Kyle: I am not ordinarily one to say nice things about Mike Lee, but I don't see why there is such an uproar here. The constitution was set up in such a way to protect the country from majoritarian tyranny. The Bill of Rights is one of the most obvious examples of counter-majoritarianism.
We have representative democracy, which also produced marriage bans and civil rights denial. Was less democracy going to improve that? He isn’t even making the distinction between direct and representative democracy.
Unfettered democracy produced gay marriage bans and denial of civil rights. One would think that progressive people realize than the concept of unalienable rights requires limitations on direct democracy. | ||||
Zeus the Moose: This reads to me like the old "we're a Republic, not a Democracy" saw
Which is really kinda weird and pointless. I mean, a Republic could just mean having an elected executive rather than a monarch, but in the general use case would mean having an indirect democracy with elected representatives rather than a direct democracy voting on policy. Representatives don't have to vote the wishes of the people they represent, but they often do since they have to face them in elections. I really don't see this coming into play in their arguments. But either way we are still a democracy. What they are probably referring to with this is either that we are a confederation or we are a constitutional republic with the emphasis on constitutional protections. The confederation part explains the deviation from the one person, one vote ideal which currently benefits Republicans. It also gives a reason for state laws that deviate from national laws. "States Rights!" which I maintain they only care about when they are losing the national argument on an issue. Of course, we abandoned our first confederation because it didn't work and moved somewhat toward a more centralized system. And we've tended to centralize more since. The constitutional protection argument is generally what they're talking about, but they pick and choose what they want and imagine things that aren't there. (To devolve into both-siderism, both sides do.) There certainly isn't anything in the constitution guaranteeing the economic policies they seem to think are their constitutional rights. To address Lee's indirect Senate elections - it does touch on both the republic issue (weirdly) and the constitutional protections issue. It's kinda a double-indirect democracy republic method. What we have now is a republican form he just wants it doubly indirect. And though it was that way in the original constitution, the constitution itself leaves constitutional protections open to supermajority democracy and that was used constitutionally to remove the extra indirect layer. Sure, if he can get another democratic supermajority to reverse it again that's constitutional, but I'm guessing he can't. | ||||
 |
?s=21 | |||
| |
CUCK CUCK CUCK CUCK CUCK CUCK CUCK | |||