But the United States government is literally based on We The People. The people are the government is the fundamental idea behind our country, even if it started out as only a small percentage of people. The only thing that happened was a transfer of power from a state's legislators, themselves elected by the people, directly to the people who had also elected those legislators. Bureaucratic shuffle, not full disenfranchisement.
What does a MAGA hat stand for?
- Thread starter rah
- Start date
- Status
But the United States government is literally based on We The People. The people are the government is the fundamental idea behind our country, even if it started out as only a small percentage of people. The only thing that happened was a transfer of power from a state's legislators, themselves elected by the people, directly to the people who had also elected those legislators. Bureaucratic shuffle, not full disenfranchisement.
Naskra
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,315
So we are told. There is nothing in the 1789 document that requires consultation with the people.
Lexicus
Deity
This is of course untrue as not even under the Articles of Confederation did the "sovereign" states retain individually the powers typically associated with sovereignty, such as the ability to declare war....
...and here the real point emerges. Naskra doesn't believe in democracy, but can't really say so because it's a real faux pas in the 21st century, so instead we hear this garbage about "sovereign states."
Moderator Action: Please don't speculate about what posters don't believe, unless it is evident in the post in question. Thank you. ~ Arakhor
Last edited by a moderator:
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,061
Which, of course, does not answer my question of what about FPTP stops "kingmaker," parties, such as exist in Canada and the UK, from even having the possibility of forming as such. You just reiterate it's FPTP, and talk about incumbent ballot access (both of which also exist in Canada and the UK), and then proceed to act as though Canada and the UK are not meaningful examples of it happening, as though, by omission, is the only meaningful example of an FPTP electoral system. And then we could into India's FPTP system. Your response says nothing, but reiterating what I was I was originally responding, as if I hadn't responded.
Naskra
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,315
Naskra can't say anything that you can't misunderstand.
Lexicus
Deity
Yes, your thinking is after all so inscrutable and unique.
stinkubus
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,845
Why haven't you taken this argument to the Supreme Court?
Naskra
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,315
I sympathize, it's the same argument I make about income taxes being legitimate. BUT, benefitting from a system still means you can criticize it, IF you think the changes you suggest will improve things. That's what criticism is FOR.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
This wasn't even the consensus at the constitutional convention, so it's a little disingenuous to present it as a self-evident fact.
Berzerker
Deity
Why is that disingenuous? What would have happened if some of the states rejected the Constitution? The states had contractual obligations under the Articles of Confederation but if that was being done away with, the states were sovereign wrt the Constitution.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
wait is this a claim that the states are sovereign entities now? I mean that’s insane. The whole purpose of the union in United stars is that they are not sovereign. In question in this regard was closed in 1860s.
Naskra
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2006
- Messages
- 1,315
States still retain some sovereignty. It is being asserted now via sanctuary cities and marijuana legalization. A new nullification crisis in the making.
stinkubus
Emperor
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2016
- Messages
- 1,845
States are only sovereign on those matters so long as the federal government permits it. Federal immigration agents can perform raids in sanctuary cities. The local law enforcement simply declines to assist. Federal agents can also raid dispensaries and grow ops in states with legal cannabis and there's nothing the states can do to stop them.
Berzerker
Deity
No, its a claim the states were sovereign before giving up certain powers under the Constitution
"What would have happened if some of the states rejected the Constitution?"
I'll answer it myself, they'd be sovereign states... or the AoC might have remained in effect or a new contract drawn up.
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
Yea that seems fair enough.
This seems like you are ignoring any nuance about the topic and claiming that a few states or municipalities are declaring sovereignty because they disagree on certain civil laws.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 12,061
The U.S. Founding Fathers were a wealthy, educated, elitist class of White males very similar to the European nobles and royals they often decried, just not formally entitled, in the classic sense (though many of them had family heraldry that indicated noble ancestry, including Washington, who has elements of his family coat-of-arms in the flag and seal of the District of Columbia). They were only marginally (by modern relative standards) more charitable about the rights and powers of their "lesser," and Alexander Hamilton, one of the principal architects of the electoral college, had a distinctive distrust of the common voter and wanted the EC to provide a bulwark to stop a vapid and vitriolic, perhaps dangerous and unhinged populist from getting into the White House - looks like that failed spectacularly in 2016. There was also the 3/5 rule about the censuses of Slave States to stop them from leaving the Union in before the Constitution was ratified, and taking their lucrative cotton revenue with them. Also, although not entrenched at the time, the idea of slavery as solely a State jurisdiction and not up for Federal interference was tacitly agreed by consensus except for a few. It is also highly questionable how far and broad "freedom of religion," beyond different Christian denominations was viewed at that time, and John Adams, in his Presidency, in the lives of many of the Founding Fathers, was already passing acts overtly violating aspects of the Bill of Rights - the Alien and Sedition Acts - long before Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus, the Jim Crow Laws, the Dawes Act, Wilson and FDR's wartime laws, laws around the two Red Scares, "National Security laws" of all sorts during the Cold War, anti-Illegal Immigration laws that negatively certain demographics of citizens, and the (Un)Patriot Act were all up to such Unconstitutional and, arguably, treasonous by the Government toward it's people, activities. And, like the instigators of the English Civil War and French Revolution, the Founding Fathers, except in a few cases, did not start with such vaunted and high minded ideals - they became rallying calls - the American Revolution, like the English Civil War and French Revolution, themselves, were originally about taxation. So, we must understand just who the Founding Fathers were and what they really believed - the men, and not the myths.
Yes, I know all that. I made the qualifier because of it. The fact remains that government being for the people is the keystone of America and democracy in general. That we are not living up to those ideals doesn't mean they aren't real.
Semi-autonomous would be the better word to describe the states, even to this day. States are largely allowed to govern themselves however they see fit as long as they don't violate the Constitution. And as I pointed out in another thread, federal law only preempts state law in a handful of very specific circumstances.
And that's a good system for the US. For how large and diverse we are, there is no way a single set of "one size fits all" laws could ever be applied without some serious problems arising from it. Best to just let the states continue to largely govern themselves.
- Status
