Separation of church and state is all there is because the religion of this world is the entire problem. All religions except for two that I know of want to divide people and teach hate but preach love. This includes christians and muslims, the only two benign religions that I am aware of is Jainism and fsm. All the rest are just people trying to commit religiouscide
Seperation of Church and State.....bs.
LOL.
When have I ever quoted Jefferson?
"I find it funny that you, a strong proponent of states rights, would put so much stock in Hamilton, who didn't think there should be states at all..."
I could say the opposite to you about Jefferson and States rights,.....but that would be equally as wrong. Both men came to understand the need for State governments and a LIMITED Federal Gov't.
The Federalist papers are basically propaganda documents to drum up support for Hamilton's view of the Constitution.
I find it funny that you, a strong proponent of states rights, would put so much stock in Hamilton, who didn't think there should be states at all...
Lick
"hen we take the census, illegals and those too young or otherwise ineligible to vote are also included in that total. "
Democrats haven't changed. They still want the political power of those who can't vote, just like they did with slavery.
"That's not the way this works."
First TBR knew more than Einstein, Now he knows more than Hamilton. Good Lord is he a smart guy.
Erotica:
…..”How can you represent people when you restrict people to vote?”…..
When we take the census, illegals and those too young or otherwise ineligible to vote are also included in that total. They are being represented……yet they are restricted from voting. Are you saying that is wrong and we should be giving those folks a say in how they are governed?
Both of you are putting forth the argument that you don't trust people to have sense enough to vote the way you want them to.
That's not the way this works.
That's not the way any of this works...
Here is the link to the actual bill being proposed by the House H.R. 1 For the People Act of 2021
https://www dot congress dot gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1/text
EA - We had a great time last night, thank you.
I think this is extactly what Hamilton was speaking of "necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions."
Nobody is actually being 'restricted' from voting.
Now just to be clear. I'm all for every legal citizen being able to vote. I also understand the pain in the ass it must be to wait for hours to vote. What I honestly think will happen if it's made to easy to vote. You're gonna get shitloads of ballots filled out by people that don't really give two shits about who wins. People that don't follow anything that's going on. We're gonna have husbands filling out the wife's ballot so she can just sign it where she wouldn't have voted if she had to leave the house.
To put it in a simple analogy. I don't want people choosing the new paint colors for my living room that have never seen my house.
If you want a say in the new colors. Come look at my house. Decide what works with the floor coverings. Put some thought into it. Compare different colors.
Those are the folks I want voting.
@Erotic
How can you represent people when you restrict people to vote?
Specifically, how are people being restricted from voting
Define in your mind the word people as it relates to voting
Define in your mind the word restricted as it applies to voting
This entire voting rights and filibuster shit is NOTHING but another lame lame ass reason to pull the race card. Let's flip over a few more rocks and look around a few more trees. If it's not there let's just put it there to be found.
I really hope the rest of the nation starts seeing the bullshit.
Do you idiots seriously want EVERYONE currently hanging out in the USA voting? Do you want people who aren't citizens? People that don't follow politics? People voting for hair color or skin color? People that would vote for Sarah Palin because she's hot? How about AOC? I'd fuck the hell outta that but should she get my vote?
That's the shit we're gonna get with this proposal.
@Perfect
Hope you have a kick ass time tonight. :)
From the same paper.
"The difference most relied on, between the American and other republics, consists in the principle of representation; which is the pivot on which the former move, and which is supposed to have been unknown to the latter, or at least to the ancient part of them"
How can you represent people when you restrict people to vote?
It's Friday night and we're headed out. I'll address your post soon. In the meantime take a moment to read Federalist 63. Emphasis added by me. This is why the Senate is necessary, This is why they had open ended debate, this is why the fillibuster is necessary.
Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn***. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.
@Perfect
"We do have checks and balances, but those aren't very strong when one party controls the Executive and Legislative branches."
Are you so sure of that? Remember it took 60 in the Senate to get Obamacare passed with the Dems having all three houses and the citizens wanting what was in Obamacare in the 70-85% positive range.
This is also why gerrymandering is such an issue.
"Taking issues to the Judicial is often long and costly."
Are you so sure of that? Texas abortion case . . . OSHA mandate case . . . All the Obamacare cases . . . Things can actually move relatively fast.
"The founders designed the Senate with no limit on debate. This protected the minority party, even when the opposition held 2 of 3 branches."
I think you need to read up on history. You are leaving a LOT out to just hit that point. Senators were not elected by the people but appointed by the states legislature. In fact, here are Madison's own words in Federalist 62.
"No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the states." Think about that now. This is how things have changed from then to now. And this is the continuation, from the same paragraph, next sentence, "It must be acknowledged that this complicated check on legislation may, in some instances, be injurious as well as beneficial; and that the peculiar defence which it involves in favour of the smaller states, would be more rational, if any interests common to them, and distinct from those of the other states, would otherwise be exposed to peculiar danger." What was he talking about there? Danger? Apply that to the OP topic. Is voting by mail a DANGER to Wyoming but not to California?
See, I think you are also missing out on why the Senate was founded. It has higher AGE restrictions than that of the house. They wanted WISDOM in there.
"As the Senate grew, unlimited debate became a nuisance so the filibuster arrived. It makes parties come to the middle to get an agreement. It stops simple minority rule."
The filibuster has become a joke. It no longer requires someone to speak. They just call in and say, "Hey. I am filibustering." The filibuster is, imo, one of the main reasons why the statement, "Bills that are sent to the Senate, die," comes from. There are reasons why Americans get upset that things are NOT done. It doesn't matter the party. It matters that the Senate STOPS things. It STOPS things too easily. Just as the filibuster has changed through time, just like how senators are now elected has changed, the rules of the Senate need to change. We are supposed to be the UNITED states of america, not the 280k people in Wyoming stopping things for 330 million others.
Hunger striking is easier when you have a full stomach.
Hunger strikers who said they would protest until voting rights legislation was passed ended their demonstration Thursday after eight days.
Good grief, even the failed Occupy Wall Street lasted longer than these lightweights. 8 days....SMH
Amazon,
That was a good post for the most part. We do have checks and balances, but those aren't very strong when one party controls the Executive and Legislative branches. Taking issues to the Judicial is often long and costly. The founders designed the Senate with no limit on debate. This protected the minority party, even when the opposition held 2 of 3 branches. As the Senate grew, unlimited debate became a nuisance so the filibuster arrived. It makes parties come to the middle to get an agreement. It's stops simple minority rule.
I went to school before a lot of you, but I was always taught that the country was founded on majority rule and minority rights.
But I graduated High School before Reagan was elected...
@Perfect
There are parts I agree with you and parts I do not. Should a simple majority rule? A solid majority of the time, yes. We see it in the supreme court with 5-4 votes. We see it in the house. We even see it in the Senate! Yes, there have been plenty of 51 to 49 votes. There have even been 51 to 50 votes.
Now where I agree with you is that it takes a serious inertia to get things moving and that is generally more than 50%. I believe it was LBJ who said (something like this) get me 70% polls and I will sign it. He wanted more than 50% to want Civil Rights. He wanted a large amount of people in the US to want it. Why? Because then he felt it would not be an issue for the masses. The masses would be happy it was done and a small amount would be pissed.
So if we follow that concept. Roe should not be overturned. In fact, this was one of the issues that did get gay marriage. Now look at Obamacare. Wonder why it has not been overturned? Because the masses want it. Some didn't want the brand name, they wanted the benefits of what was inside it. Now what does it look like for voting rights? If you break it down, and I do not KNOW THE POLLS, I'd say that 90% of the people want what is in the bill. It is akin to that of Obamacare, details, versus name brand.
But see, the issue that you keep missing is that we have a system of checks and balances for the majority issues. We have three branches that sign off. It can die at any of those three spots. And then . . . it can be contested by someone who has standing and brought to the courts to resolve it.
"Stop spinning. Just admit you're wrong for once. "
LOL.
That's rich coming from you...
TBR
Stop spinning. Just admit you're wrong for once. You know damn well that you wouldn't agree with the simple majority, when that majority was opposed to LBQT or women's rights. We do not have simple majority rule in this country for a reason. Both sides fight for it when it suits them. To let simple majorites control laws would be chaos.
LOL.
Your desperate attempts to try to be relevant are increasingly comical.
History marches on.
You continue to try to "Stand athwart history, yelling STOP!"
