• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lawsuit challenges constitutionality of Colorado's TABOR amendment

GPS_Flex

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This article just blows me away. State lawmakers and local government officials are challenging the constitutionality of the Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.

The suit alleges that TABOR, which prohibits the legislature from raising taxes without a vote of the people, limits the General Assembly's power in violation of the U.S. Constitution guarantee that states have a "republican" government, in which the authority to govern is given to elected officials.
Click to expand...

It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so stinking sad that elected officials think they need less democracy to better represent their constituents. The lawsuit says, among other things:

"At our nation's birth, some 3 million citizens acted through their representatives at a constitutional convention to commit the nation to a government of representative democracy, a republic, and rejected direct democracy," the lawsuit argues. "Today, the Constitution carries the same commitment in a nation of over 300 million people."
Click to expand...


So these Republicans and Democrats believe that their constituents are infringing upon the constitutional right of the state government to tax and spend as much as it wants?


How are idiots like this getting elected?



Denver Post Article

Link to Lawsuit
 
This raises an interesting question, should we replace our government with one more inclined towards passions and factions (aka Mob Rule), which not only removes from issues needed deliberation but also favors majorities over minorities in such a way that the minorities rights could be trampled upon. After all mob rule did not bode well for the Greek city states...
 
Disputatious71 said:
This raises an interesting question, should we replace our government with one more inclined towards passions and factions (aka Mob Rule), which not only removes from issues needed deliberation but also favors majorities over minorities in such a way that the minorities rights could be trampled upon. After all mob rule did not bode well for the Greek city states...
Click to expand...

Sorry dude, this isn’t mob rule. Mob rule is more like giving people who don’t pay taxes the right to vote to raise taxes.
 
GPS_Flex said:
Have you read the US Constitution?
Click to expand...

I am staying on topic, are you ? It is your post and it appears you do not believe the Republic we have in the USA is democratic, but to ease your mind I have read it several times and appear to have a better understanding of it than you do.
 
GPS_Flex said:
This article just blows me away. State lawmakers and local government officials are challenging the constitutionality of the Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.



It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so stinking sad that elected officials think they need less democracy to better represent their constituents. The lawsuit says, among other things:




So these Republicans and Democrats believe that their constituents are infringing upon the constitutional right of the state government to tax and spend as much as it wants?


How are idiots like this getting elected?



Denver Post Article

Link to Lawsuit
Click to expand...

I don't see how they can challenge it since the people voted in accordance with the Constitution for the state of Colorado to amend it with TABOR. That is a republican principle in the Constitution of the United States they are citing as cause for the suit. Upon reading Constitution of the State of Colorado under Section I it states, "All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole." It is followed by Section II which states, "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States."

This is what happens when you have people that don't understand the basics of our system of government and the Constitution(s) protections of rights. Constitution(s) are a limit on government not the people who have ultimate authority.
 
The_Patriot said:
I don't see how they can challenge it since the people voted in accordance with the Constitution for the state of Colorado to amend it with TABOR. That is a republican principle in the Constitution of the United States they are citing as cause for the suit. Upon reading Constitution of the State of Colorado under Section I it states, "All political power is vested in and derived from the people; all government, of right, originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole." It is followed by Section II which states, "The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent state; and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided, such change be not repugnant to the constitution of the United States."

This is what happens when you have people that don't understand the basics of our system of government and the Constitution(s) protections of rights. Constitution(s) are a limit on government not the people who have ultimate authority.
Click to expand...

I believe the underlined part was the part being used to attempt to refute the amendment
 
Disputatious71 said:
I believe the underlined part was the part being used to attempt to refute the amendment
Click to expand...

The clause their using is Article IV Section IV Clause I: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

The clause doesn't fit since it actually protects the clauses in Colorado's Constitution that allow the people to alter or abolish their Constitution and government.
 
Disputatious71 said:
I am staying on topic, are you ? It is your post and it appears you do not believe the Republic we have in the USA is democratic, but to ease your mind I have read it several times and appear to have a better understanding of it than you do.
Click to expand...
If you understood the US Constitution, you wouldn’t have asked me if I think it is “democratic” after I said it is a Constitutional Republic.

As for you having a better understanding of it than me, we shall see.
 
The way I see it, since the states have the right to a "Republican" form of government, and not a direct democracy, there is a basis for the lawsuit. However, in the end, it is the people themselves who have the last word, and that, of course, is in the voting booth. If they don't like what their elected representatives are doing, then they have the right to "throw the bums out". In the end, the effect of having a Republican form of government is not that much different from having a direct democracy.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
The way I see it, since the states have the right to a "Republican" form of government, and not a direct democracy, there is a basis for the lawsuit. However, in the end, it is the people themselves who have the last word, and that, of course, is in the voting booth. If they don't like what their elected representatives are doing, then they have the right to "throw the bums out". In the end, the effect of having a Republican form of government is not that much different from having a direct democracy.
Click to expand...

Except the lawsuit at hand seeks to restrict the restrictions voters choose to place upon government.

This lawsuit isn’t going anywhere anyway. See PACIFIC STATES TEL. & TEL. CO. V. OREGON, 223 U. S. 118 (1912).
 
GPS_Flex said:
This article just blows me away. State lawmakers and local government officials are challenging the constitutionality of the Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights.



It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so stinking sad that elected officials think they need less democracy to better represent their constituents. The lawsuit says, among other things:




So these Republicans and Democrats believe that their constituents are infringing upon the constitutional right of the state government to tax and spend as much as it wants?


How are idiots like this getting elected?



Denver Post Article

Link to Lawsuit
Click to expand...
Scum like this keep getting elected because they know that the average voter is too busy to pay attention and or do something like this in the beginning or middle of their term so that when it comes time for elections most of the voters already forgot what scumbags their elected officials are.
 
Conservatives keep pointing out that we're a republic.

This is what a republic is. We elect people to represent us, they make the decisions. Not us directly.

Changed your minds, have you?
 
Deuce said:
Conservatives keep pointing out that we're a republic.

This is what a republic is. We elect people to represent us, they make the decisions. Not us directly.

Changed your minds, have you?
Click to expand...

The galactic irony coming from the side that would like to substitute the communist manifesto in place of our constitution, asks if we want to do away with our republic. Smarminess and hackery all at once.

:lamo
 
Deuce said:
Conservatives keep pointing out that we're a republic.

This is what a republic is. We elect people to represent us, they make the decisions. Not us directly.

Changed your minds, have you?
Click to expand...

The number of democrat plaintiffs in this lawsuit are about twice the number of republican plaintiffs so I fail to see how your point is relevant.
 
I laugh at people who act like we are being represented by those in government.

So what if my minuscule vote contributed to their election? I don't have any control over the decisions they make. Even if they make 90% of the decisions that I agree with, the other 10% I can't stop them from doing. And if the response is that I should vote them out if I don't like what they're doing - how the hell does that help me once they're in office? And by the time I can vote them out, they have passed laws that are hard or impossible to undo.

I accept the reality, but calling our political system a democracy is a joke. The aristocrats get elected, then they do what they want - basically. It's always been this way. We have separate branches of government to sort of balance it out, but all those branches are occupied by aristocrats also.

But yeah, power to the people!... and all that.
 
American said:
The galactic irony coming from the side that would like to substitute the communist manifesto in place of our constitution, asks if we want to do away with our republic. Smarminess and hackery all at once.

:lamo
Click to expand...

What a bizarre interpretation of both reality and my post.
Communist manifesto? Is that what you really think about liberals? You should probably listen to Limbaugh less often.

GPS_Flex said:
The number of democrat plaintiffs in this lawsuit are about twice the number of republican plaintiffs so I fail to see how your point is relevant.
Click to expand...

My point is that damn near every time a liberal says we're a Democracy, some conservative chimes in and says "NUH UH, WE'RE A REPUBLIC!" As if those two things are somehow mutually exclusive in the first place. But then they're always willing to play the "will of the people" card when it comes to whatever platform they support happens to have a 50.04% vote in favor of it.
 
Deuce said:
What a bizarre interpretation of both reality and my post.
Communist manifesto? Is that what you really think about liberals? You should probably listen to Limbaugh less often.



My point is that damn near every time a liberal says we're a Democracy, some conservative chimes in and says "NUH UH, WE'RE A REPUBLIC!" As if those two things are somehow mutually exclusive in the first place. But then they're always willing to play the "will of the people" card when it comes to whatever platform they support happens to have a 50.04% vote in favor of it.
Click to expand...

Try reading the manifesto. Furthermore the will of the people typically has to do with elected officials breaking their promises, I believe. If I vote for someone's platform, and they don't follow it, then he's not representing me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom