Repeal the 17th amendment

Federalist said:

But tell me more about this federal legislation that authorizes citizens to be forced into FEMA camps. Which of Congress' enumerated powers under Article I, section 8 would such legislation be carrying into execution?

Click to expand...

When we put people into camps before in our history, it was held as Constitutional. Perhaps you should research that to see how these things are done with the blessing of the Courts and within the Constitution?

You may want to start with the date Dec. 18, 1944.

haymarket said:

Let me finish that for you.

Your inability to understand that we are speculating about the future and thus by its very nature cannot provide step by step details including future laws that will be passed is obvious.

I have provided the scenario for you. I have provided a rational explanation for you. I have provided general events which could facilitate this scenario.

I have explained how the Constitutional "obstacles" that you pretend to raise will be easily navigated and negated.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I have said from the very beginning. Federal fascism can only come about if federal officials negate the constitution. Those of us who work to prevent the negation of the constitution are working to prevent fascism.

haymarket said:

I have no doubt that is what you believe. And you are certainly entitled to hold that belief if it helps you achieve some inner peace.

Click to expand...

Constitutionazis are never at peace. They live in constant fear, anger, and paranoia that we the people or the government will interfere with their private designs. They use the Constitution as a window shade to block out the outside world, but they have nothing to block out the voice of the people.

Federalist said:

Yes, this is what I have said from the very beginning. Federal fascism can only come about if federal officials negate the constitution. Those of us who work to prevent the negation of the constitution are working to prevent fascism.

Click to expand...

Time will tell ...... it always does.

PrometheusBound said:

Constitutionazis are never at peace. They live in constant fear, anger, and paranoia that we the people or the government will interfere with their private designs. They use the Constitution as a window shade to block out the outside world, but they have nothing to block out the voice of the people.

Click to expand...

I would only slightly change your post to say that they use selected PARTS of the Constitution. they seem to be head over heels in love with certain parts of it while they avoid other sections like the plague.

haymarket said:

When we put people into camps before in our history, it was held as Constitutional. Perhaps you should research that to see how these things are done with the blessing of the Courts and within the Constitution?

You may want to start with the date Dec. 18, 1944.

Click to expand...

Yes when the federal government put people into camps it told the people that what it was doing was constitutional. Of course this was a lie, nor was it a big surprise.

Those of us who are working to hold the federal government to the actual rules contained in the actual constitution are working against fascism. Sometimes the federal government has to be told no. Especially when it violates the constitution and moved down the road to fascism.

PrometheusBound said:

Constitutionazis are never at peace. They live in constant fear, anger, and paranoia that we the people or the government will interfere with their private designs. They use the Constitution as a window shade to block out the outside world, but they have nothing to block out the voice of the people.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether you've been following this whole exchange, but it began with haymarket's fear that the right wing would usher in fascism. Not my fear. Haymarket's fear, and unfounded fear at that. It won't be constitutionalists who usher in fascism, but a federal government that decides to ignore the constitution that does so.

There is no way for the federal government to be both fascist and constitutional. If it wants to go fascist, it will have to choose to do so contrary to the constitutional checks against doing so.

Federalist said:

Yes when the federal government put people into camps it told the people that what it was doing was constitutional. Of course this was a lie, nor was it a big surprise.

Those of us who are working to hold the federal government to the actual rules contained in the actual constitution are working against fascism. Sometimes the federal government has to be told no. Especially when it violates the constitution and moved down the road to fascism.

Click to expand...

I have no doubt you believe that. I also have no doubt you would oppose fascism if it appeared on the horizon and you recognized it as fascism and admitted it was fascism.

haymarket said:

I would only slightly change your post to say that they use selected PARTS of the Constitution. they seem to be head over heels in love with certain parts of it while they avoid other sections like the plague.

Click to expand...

What sections to they avoid, in your opinion?

Federalist said:

What sections to they avoid, in your opinion?

Click to expand...

I will be glad to give you my opinion based on my recollection of past discussions and NO - I will not waste hour upon hour poring over both this and other websites to produce those since you asked me for my opinion and I am NOT trying to prove a case here.

Some I have encountered seem to have little use for the Preamble and attempt to downplay it at every opportunity telling the world that it authorizes no specific law rather than as an important insight into everything that follows in the body of the actual document. And of course we have the infamous elastic clause in Article I, section 8 that never seems to get agreed upon in its meaning. And the 14th Amendment with its equal enforcement language seems not be another favorite.

And it seems there is no shortage of rightist warriors who want to repeal the 17th Amendment as well as the 16th as well.

haymarket said:

I will be glad to give you my opinion based on my recollection of past discussions and NO - I will not waste hour upon hour poring over both this and other websites to produce those since you asked me for my opinion and I am NOT trying to prove a case here.

Some I have encountered seem to have little use for the Preamble and attempt to downplay it at every opportunity telling the world that it authorizes no specific law rather than as an important insight into everything that follows in the body of the actual document. And of course we have the infamous elastic clause in Article I, section 8 that never seems to get agreed upon in its meaning. And the 14th Amendment with its equal enforcement language seems not be another favorite.

And it seems there is no shortage of rightist warriors who want to repeal the 17th Amendment as well as the 16th as well.

Click to expand...

I see. When you said "avoid" above, you meant "disagree as to the meaning of".

Federalist said:

I see. When you said "avoid" above, you meant "disagree as to the meaning of".

Click to expand...

NO. the Preamble is actively avoided. And YES. There is lots of disagreement about the meanings.

haymarket said:

How does simply reproducing part of the nations birth announcement answer my questions?

It uses those things to be sure but it does NOT explain them.

I ask you again.....

what is natures god?

What does self evident mean?

You do realize that the words you reproduced as they pertain to things which are self evident are simply statements of belief don't you? And some of those statements of beliefs were obviously only for effect and even the writer did not subscribe to them.

Click to expand...

the DOI our founding document states our rights are endowed to us by the creator, or natures god...they left the term subjective to the citizen, be it the christian god, or the god of nature., before the creation of the DOI or constitution, people had these natural rights, they spoke, moved about, protected themselves, worshiped...and that is (self-evident), because we recognized we did them, it didn't take a king, to tell us we had speech, or our other rights to life.

the founders are saying that the king is violating these natural rights everyone has and born with, and they are not longer going to allow this to happen, and we as people are cutting our bonds with him, and his unjust power OVER the people.

we the people, created the constitution, the constitution created the federal government, ...can the federal government which is created by the constitution of the people.....grant rights to the people or dictate them.....no!

government is on the bottom of the chain of power, we the people are first, the constitution is next, with the federal government bringing up the rear.....but today the federal government puts themselves first, the constitution second and the people third.....why?

because in republican government the people are .....OVER the government

in democracy the people are ....UNDER government, they are subjects of government.....don't believe me, look at the 14th amendment were it makes all individuals subject to the federal government....before the 14th.... individual Americans were not under the jurisdiction of the federal government, they were the masters and government their servant.

just like the king was OVER the people, the federal government has now, put themselves OVER the people.

ernst barkmann said:

the DOI our founding document states our rights are endowed to us by the creator, or natures god...

Click to expand...

The Constitution is real.

Our rights that we the people have because we insisted they be put in the Constitution are also real.

All the mumbo jumbo stuff about gods and nature is just what you believe because you want to believe it.

haymarket said:

The Constitution is real.

Our rights that we the people have because we insisted they be put in the Constitution are also real.

All the mumbo jumbo stuff about gods and nature is just what you believe because you want to believe it.

Click to expand...

then answer this question please, if WE AS YOU SAY , put things in the constitution the people insisted, that WE have the power to grant our own rights.

if WE, the people have the power of granting ourselves these rights, can WE not have the power to take them away?

one must have the power too destroy ones own creation ......but?... are not our rights unalienable?

ernst barkmann said:

then answer this question please, if WE AS YOU SAY , put things in the constitution the people insisted, that WE have the power to grant our own rights.

if WE, the people have the power of granting ourselves these rights, can WE not have the power to take them away?

one must have the power too destroy ones own creation ......but?... are not our rights unalienable?

Click to expand...

It is a multi-part process. Rights come from enough people having enough power to force the government to accept a certain behavior as a right and to grant it protection as such. It involves two basic things 1) citizens coming together and 2) government accepting the wishes of the citizens.

As times changes and the winds of the political environment changes, both of those factors could change also.

Federalist said:

Yes when the federal government put people into camps it told the people that what it was doing was constitutional. Of course this was a lie, nor was it a big surprise.

Those of us who are working to hold the federal government to the actual rules contained in the actual constitution are working against fascism. Sometimes the federal government has to be told no. Especially when it violates the constitution and moved down the road to fascism.

Click to expand...

Only if you are one of the few people allowed to hold real power under this system can you impose your own views of what the Constitution means. The Constitution itself establishes this oligarchic system. As usual, Constitutionazis are complaining about things that their own sacred document set up in the first place.

haymarket said:

It is a multi-part process. Rights come from enough people having enough power to force the government to accept a certain behavior as a right and to grant it protection as such. It involves two basic things 1) citizens coming together and 2) government accepting the wishes of the citizens.

As times changes and the winds of the political environment changes, both of those factors could change also.

Click to expand...

this makes no sense, the people don't come together to make there own rights.

if that were possible, then are you telling me people can tell congress to create rights,.......what if its 51% that want a new right............and 49% don't..........do they get the new right?.......sounds as if it is majority rule too me...something madison hated!

and you did not bother to answer my question, you deflected it.

according to you the people can, make there own rights......will then what the people create, they also can repeal, ...the founders ....say the bill of rights CANNOT be repealed.

and the union was not created for people to have a direct votes in government on all offices........that is democracy,...Madison created a constitutional republic, not democracy..........a system of indirect and direct voting.........YOU vote for you representative, your legislators elect the senator, and the electoral college elects the president. so the people only get 1 direct vote in their interest, on federal elections........not 3.

PrometheusBound said:

Only if you are one of the few people allowed to hold real power under this system can you impose your own views of what the Constitution means. The Constitution itself establishes this oligarchic system. As usual, Constitutionazis are complaining about things that their own sacred document set up in the first place.

Click to expand...

as the federalist stated before:...... to have true constitutional law, in a republic...it would be impossible too have fascism in our government, because government would have 18 duties ONLY.........they would not possess the power to institute any kind of fascist dogma.

as a constitutionalists, i seek to limit government power, and removed the rich and power lobbyist from Washington, by cutting the throat of government power, so it is impossible for them to favor special interest.

haymarket said:

NO. the Preamble is actively avoided. And YES. There is lots of disagreement about the meanings.

Click to expand...

Avoided? I was unaware of anyone avoiding the preamble. I mean it's right up there at the top and declares very clearly why the people decided to create this compact between their various states.

PrometheusBound said:

Only if you are one of the few people allowed to hold real power under this system can you impose your own views of what the Constitution means. The Constitution itself establishes this oligarchic system. As usual, Constitutionazis are complaining about things that their own sacred document set up in the first place.

Click to expand...

There's nothing sacred about the constitution. It's simply a compact or treaty made between fifty individual sovereign states. As a proponent of local self-government, I'd be fine with dissolving the federal government and returning the powers delegated to it back to the several states. You appear to regard the constitution as having created an oligarchic system. Perhaps this is something upon which you and I can agree.

But as long as the federal compact is in effect, the greatest way I see of preserving liberty and local self-government is by carefully circumscribing the scope of the federal involvement.

Federalist said:

Avoided? I was unaware of anyone avoiding the preamble. I mean it's right up there at the top and declares very clearly why the people decided to create this compact between their various states.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear how you enthusiastically embrace it.

ernst barkmann said:

as the federalist stated before:...... to have true constitutional law, in a republic...it would be impossible too have fascism in our government, because government would have 18 duties ONLY.........they would not possess the power to institute any kind of fascist dogma.

as a constitutionalists, i seek to limit government power, and removed the rich and power lobbyist from Washington, by cutting the throat of government power, so it is impossible for them to favor special interest.

Click to expand...

Not having to obey the will of the people also makes it impossible for them to stop private interests from imposing a government-like tyranny over the majority. With the Constitution interpreted the way it was before laissez faire caused the Depression, the robber barons and sweatshoppers ran wild.

Federalist said:

There's nothing sacred about the constitution. It's simply a compact or treaty made between fifty individual sovereign states. As a proponent of local self-government, I'd be fine with dissolving the federal government and returning the powers delegated to it back to the several states. You appear to regard the constitution as having created an oligarchic system. Perhaps this is something upon which you and I can agree.

But as long as the federal compact is in effect, the greatest way I see of preserving liberty and local self-government is by carefully circumscribing the scope of the federal involvement.

Click to expand...

I'd have to agree. But though the local governments are more democratic, they can get away with unpopular policies because of their oligarchic republican structure, which always promotes special interests or pompous know-it-alls with unrealistic theories. Those who preach against "mob rule" want to impose Snob Rule.

PrometheusBound said:

I'd have to agree. But though the local governments are more democratic, they can get away with unpopular policies because of their oligarchic republican structure, which always promotes special interests or pompous know-it-alls with unrealistic theories. Those who preach against "mob rule" want to impose Snob Rule.

Click to expand...

Yes, local governments have many of the same issues as central governments. The difference being that they have jurisdiction over a smaller number of people than a single one-size-oppresses-all government. If Stalin had only been a mayor of a small town, a lot of lives would have been spared.

That's why I continually seek to limit the scope and reach of the federal government.