General Discussion

eniwetok

(1,629 posts)

102. amusing catch 22

Mon Jan 9, 2017, 04:00 PM

Jan 2017

So by your rules... if the system is virtually reformproof because the amendment formula is absurdly antidemocratic, then that "proves" there is consent for the system? Thanks again for the laughs.

As for how many actually consented to the system? By my count 1071 white guys in the ratification committees and last I heard they're all dead. I know you have some slavish devotion to the politics of 1787 and the will of the dead. I don't.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/dates-of-ratification-of-the-constitution/

If we're talking about consent TODAY the moral legitimacy comes from government policies agreed to by the consent of the majority. And our system really fails in this regard as the Bush and Trump Junta's prove... and anything passed out of the Senate by senators that represent less than 50%+ of the population. I await your defense of the amendment formula where states with as little as 40% of the population... can ratify an amendment meaning it could be as little as 21% of the population.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

128 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence [View all] SCVDem Jan 2017 OP

Your point? NobodyHere Jan 2017 #1

The point? SCVDem Jan 2017 #10

you're swimming upstream, with the slavish, small-thinkers here. nt TheFrenchRazor Jan 2017 #21

amen! eniwetok Jan 2017 #51

Might have to think about that myself. Cali can stand on its own 6th biggest econ. in the world... brush Jan 2017 #28

'it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government! elleng Jan 2017 #2

How do we do it? pangaia Jan 2017 #4

With patience and difficulty. elleng Jan 2017 #5

secede. there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits it. nt TheFrenchRazor Jan 2017 #20

That didn't work well last time dumbcat Jan 2017 #24

The Supreme Court disagrees. onenote Jan 2017 #26

it's a tortured decision... eniwetok Jan 2017 #40

Every decision that someone disagrees with onenote Jan 2017 #44

have you even read Texas v or Heller? eniwetok Jan 2017 #45

Yes. Next question? onenote Jan 2017 #46

then please explain how it's not a tortured decision n/t eniwetok Jan 2017 #54

No thanks. As I said, every decision that one disagrees with is tortured onenote Jan 2017 #55

figures you can't back up your claim. n/t eniwetok Jan 2017 #58

Figures you can't figure out the point I'm making. onenote Jan 2017 #59

sure I do... eniwetok Jan 2017 #78

Thanks for proving my point. You "get" what you want to get. I get it. onenote Jan 2017 #79

Hey, embrace your antidemocratic beliefs!!! eniwetok Jan 2017 #82

pray tell, why wasn't there an amendment banning secession? eniwetok Jan 2017 #81

1869 case, not 1969. I know you'd want to correct that. onenote Jan 2017 #83

oops, we both messed up... it's 1868 eniwetok Jan 2017 #90

there's a particular level of irony in you posing that question... LanternWaste Jan 2017 #92

Not petty. Just trying to correct the record for those who might think you were referring onenote Jan 2017 #95

Why wasn't there an amendment to ban secession? eniwetok Jan 2017 #91

Jefferson Davis wanted a trial to establish the right to secession Yupster Jan 2017 #27

I don't feel sorry at all for that traitor. Fu_k him and all of those white supremacists bastards. brush Jan 2017 #29

Those white supremasist bastards Yupster Jan 2017 #34

I repeat, fu_k all those white supremacist bastards. Being 99% of anything doesn't excuse it. brush Jan 2017 #37

Even the majority of the most anti-slavery people Yupster Jan 2017 #66

You sound like you're defending it. Again, fu_k white supremacists then and fu_k Bannon and ... brush Jan 2017 #68

what about non-white people at the time? JonLP24 Jan 2017 #76

The Founders must have seen it as the treestar Jan 2017 #33

That's what the Confederates thought Yupster Jan 2017 #25

and yet there is NO prohibition against secession n/t eniwetok Jan 2017 #36

No, you are right Yupster Jan 2017 #69

texas v white tries to... eniwetok Jan 2017 #70

Madison wanted to add to the Constitution... eniwetok Jan 2017 #35

institute new government secession and form a new government. there it is nt msongs Jan 2017 #3

And this famous jurist....... suston96 Jan 2017 #6

Agreed. Game on. democratisphere Jan 2017 #7

he also wrote... 0rganism Jan 2017 #8

It'll probably take something like the republican recession of 2007 - 2009 or depression ffr Jan 2017 #16

heh heh; that's pretty much how it works. nt TheFrenchRazor Jan 2017 #19

we sure as hell handmade34 Jan 2017 #9

I was looking for some threads about this article and see very little. badhair77 Jan 2017 #64

Followed by: sl8 Jan 2017 #11

We may have to return to a confederation. roamer65 Jan 2017 #12

We won't have any gov't if we don't do something about the environment. YOHABLO Jan 2017 #13

Amen to that! 2naSalit Jan 2017 #14

How'd that work out for the South? X_Digger Jan 2017 #15

Post removed Post removed Jan 2017 #18

I'm clever enough to know that proposing secession is an asinine idea. X_Digger Jan 2017 #22

California actually has a case for it if you think about it. Their votes don't even count in the ... brush Jan 2017 #31

Was Lincoln's war legal? eniwetok Jan 2017 #39

So you're really taking the side of Jefferson Davis, et al? X_Digger Jan 2017 #41

ROTF... even the Articles could be amended... if enough people eniwetok Jan 2017 #47

Aww, you mean you have to convince most people that changed is needed? Yes, that's hard work. X_Digger Jan 2017 #53

so you you believe 4% of the population should be able to stop all reforms eniwetok Jan 2017 #57

I believe that fundamental changes to our system of government should req almost unanimous consent. X_Digger Jan 2017 #60

RED HERRING ALERT!! eniwetok Jan 2017 #62

Don't like the logical conclusions your ill-thought-out proposals would create? Tough shit. X_Digger Jan 2017 #65

you're evading the math.... eniwetok Jan 2017 #71

"reformproof" ! 27 amendments. How's that math? X_Digger Jan 2017 #73

Not ONE amendment reformed a core antidemocratic feature in the Constitution... eniwetok Jan 2017 #74

So if they don't do something you want, they don't count? They're not "serious reform"?? X_Digger Jan 2017 #75

moving the goal post? eniwetok Jan 2017 #77

27 amendments is "virtually reformproof"? What kind of reality is that? X_Digger Jan 2017 #80

Hey sport... I'm not the one with the bizarre contradiction... eniwetok Jan 2017 #86

Wait, it's "virtually reformproof" but it's too easy? Make up your mind. X_Digger Jan 2017 #105

still having problems with the math? And do you know what "democracy" is? eniwetok Jan 2017 #106

Free clue: it's right there in the name. United States. X_Digger Jan 2017 #108

how soon we forget... eniwetok Jan 2017 #109

Yes, dear, you go ahead and tilt at that windmill. *pat *pat *pat n/t X_Digger Jan 2017 #110

EVASION ALERT!!! eniwetok Jan 2017 #112

Awfully far out on that limb, be careful. X_Digger Jan 2017 #118

there you go again.. eniwetok Jan 2017 #120

Is your definition of "antidemocratic" like your definition of "reformproof"?? X_Digger Jan 2017 #122

in the democratic world YOURS is the fringe idea eniwetok Jan 2017 #123

of the smallest 13 states (I assume thats where you get your "4% can block") 6 voted Democratic Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #117

it doesn't matter if it's probable... only if it's possible eniwetok Jan 2017 #119

antidemocratic government is insidious... eniwetok Jan 2017 #124

If you want a more democratic system you are going to have to move out of the US Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #125

the civic religion eniwetok Jan 2017 #127

Good points, totally agree Grey Lemercier Jan 2017 #128

despicable accusation eniwetok Jan 2017 #48

Your proposal for California to threaten secession was a nonsensical pipe dream onenote Jan 2017 #84

Sure it's long shot... so WTF are your plans to force reform... eniwetok Jan 2017 #87

well I've eliminated the really stupid plans, which is something you ought to consider doing onenote Jan 2017 #88

thanks for the laughs! eniwetok Jan 2017 #89

Your sense of humor is interesting. onenote Jan 2017 #96

nothing happens from inaction and cowardice... eniwetok Jan 2017 #98

More like taking the side of Timothy Pickering. or William Lloyd Garison SQUEE Jan 2017 #97

What then are specific prohibitions that would re-interpret the conflict as illegal LanternWaste Jan 2017 #93

isn't the real question was secession illegal? eniwetok Jan 2017 #101

so now we're adopting Tea Party sloganeering? onenote Jan 2017 #17

sorry, the system can't be reformed in any basic way.... eniwetok Jan 2017 #38

Sorry, but not going to re-hash that debate with you onenote Jan 2017 #43

if the amendment formula isn't antidemocratic... please define what makes it democratic. eniwetok Jan 2017 #49

Apparently you didn't understand my post onenote Jan 2017 #52

sorry, I'm not a slavish adherent to a defective system... eniwetok Jan 2017 #61

What is the objective and peer-reviewed evidence LanternWaste Jan 2017 #94

I suspect you're not interested in evidence... eniwetok Jan 2017 #99

And this: kentuck Jan 2017 #23

conversely... government WITHOUT the consent of the governed... is illegitimate n/t eniwetok Jan 2017 #50

And until the governed change the system, then this is a government with the consent onenote Jan 2017 #56

amusing catch 22 eniwetok Jan 2017 #102

My "slavish" devotion isn't to the politics of 1787, it's to our particular constitutional system onenote Jan 2017 #104

TRANSLATION: eniwetok Jan 2017 #107

When did I suggest that you suggested we not have a constitutional system? onenote Jan 2017 #111

can't have it both ways... eniwetok Jan 2017 #113

what was the point of claiming... eniwetok Jan 2017 #114

Let me try, again, to explain onenote Jan 2017 #126

This message was self-deleted by its author JTFrog Jan 2017 #30

This document is an "address of greviences" to his Majesty King George ...or indictment Historic NY Jan 2017 #32

the term of art is "petition for redress of grievances" Bucky Jan 2017 #100

That's ironic, LWolf Jan 2017 #42

It would be nice if the alternative to one kind of destructive government wasn't a different kind yurbud Jan 2017 #63

in our system the people can't learn from mistakes.... eniwetok Jan 2017 #72

our system doesn't care about the will of the people. those you refer to in your last sentence... yurbud Jan 2017 #85

I think that is the heart of the matter ymetca Jan 2017 #103

I think that just happened. Or will on the 20th. nt TeamPooka Jan 2017 #67

Will some DUers start embracing "2nd Amendment remedies"? hughee99 Jan 2017 #115

there are no second amendment "remedies" eniwetok Jan 2017 #121

K&R Jeffersons Ghost Jan 2017 #116