Constitution of the United States

[Doctor Strange]

This country isn't a Democracy. It's a Representative Republic.

Meaning the citizens elect politicians to represent them and make decisions for them.

Meaning they should be able to directly elect their senators, congressmen, governors, presidents, etc. to represent the interests of their constituency.

you just described democracy. and you call yourself a political science major. snort.

 

[Superman4ever]

without a doubt, you are the worst exhibitor of logic i've ever come across on the internet, not the least of which is your reliance on logical fallacies.

I beg to differ.

*coughcough Dr. Strange coughcough*

Dr. Strange: Take the power away from the IGNORANT MASSES (they be stupid) but by ALL means ARM THEM (ARM THEM, ARM THEM)!

 

[Doctor Strange]

The only way I'd support getting rid of the 23rd amendment is if DC was allowed to become part of Maryland (or Virginia).

Right now, Washington DC is not part of any state. In effect, it is its own city, county, and state. But, it doesn't enjoy official statehood. This means it has no voting power in Congress. It can't elect any senators or representatives. It's only presence in Congress is through a non-voting delegate. And, despite it's lack of presence in Congress, Congress still has ultimate authority over the city. Granted, it has given a good bit of that authority back to the city (DC can have a city council and mayor), but it could take back that power anytime it chooses.

It is the seat of the federal government and should remain that way. so, yes, the federal government SHOULD have authority over it. I am not for DC becoming a state unto itself or being incorporated into any state. The federal government should remain separate from the states.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I beg to differ.

*coughcough Dr. Strange coughcough*

Dr. Strange: Take the power away from the IGNORANT MASSES (they be stupid) but by ALL means ARM THEM (ARM THEM, ARM THEM)!

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of ignorant? Yes, clearly you are.

 

[wiegeabo]

you just described democracy. and you call yourself a political science major. snort.

No, he didn't.

In a democracy (a pure democracy), the people put forward, and vote on, the issues directly. And if they do elect agents as representatives, those representatives are strictly bound by the will of the people they represent.

In a republic (which the United States is), the people elect officials (in this case, Representatives, Senators, President) who act and vote for the people. But they are not bound to the people's will and can freely act or vote against them. If the people don't like the way they voted, they can choose to elect someone else next time, but they don't directly vote on an issue. (They're are exceptions , like here in California where the people can create and vote on propositions, but that's the exception, not the rule).

 

[Superman4ever]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of ignorant? Yes, clearly you are.

You define it quite well. So, no!

I find it amazing that when conservatives (or the ignorant) are pushed in a corner, instead of debating, like rational, sane individuals, they'd rather hurl insults, like little school children. Insults that apply to them quite well if you ask me.

 

[Doctor Strange]

You define it quite well. So, no!

I find it amazing that when conservatives (or the ignorant) are pushed in a corner, instead of debating, like rational, sane individuals, they'd rather hurl insults, like little school children. Insults that apply to them quite well if you ask me.

Pushed into a corner? Sir, if you are insulted over the suggestion that you do not know the definition of a word, then you lead a fragile life. Certainly you haven't displayed any evidence of knowing the meaning of ignorant, but you certainly have displayed ignorance.

 

[Matt]

Strange, you've basically just called half of your fellow political forum users stupid or implied such. Have a few days off and when you get back perhaps you will have better manners.

 

[The Senator]

I find it hilarious how you: a) presume i'm a conservative

Your beliefs tread upon conservative-libertarian principles. Hence it wasn't incorrect to label you a conservative.

b) believe there is a right to vote

I believe there is a right to vote and that the Constitution establishes that, yes.

c) believe that these same 500,000+ people currently have actual, true representation in the legislative branch (they don't)

You're correct. They don't. Which is why they deserve it. People in DC deserve at least a Congressional seat. I'd prefer it if DC became a state, but the likelihood that will ever happen is incredibly thin.

d) believe the people elect the president

The people, for the most part, elect the President. The electoral college votes in each state reflect the popular vote within that state.

e) clearly haven't read the Constitution even though you're participating in a thread in which the text was posted. actually, i don't; i find it be rather sad.

See, I have read the constitution. And all those amendments you are in favor of repealing? THEY'RE IN THE CONSTITUTION! I'm mostly arguing for things which are in the constitution (with the exception of DC statehood, which I feel should be established through a Constitutional amendment).

without a doubt, you are the worst exhibitor of logic i've ever come across on the internet, not the least of which is your reliance on logical fallacies.

Make your accusations. But you, sir, are frankly one of the biggest hypocrites I've encountered here. You've gone off on other threads explaining how individuals have rights guaranteed by the Constitution within the Second Amendment, yet you favor repealing amendments which give citizens rights to elect their senators and have a say in how their government works. So, you basically want to pick and choose which amendments in the Constitution work for you, while advocating the disenfranchisement of nearly every voter in the country (when it comes to electing senators) and every voter in the District of Columbia (when it comes to electing anyone at the federal level).

 

[Superman4ever]

Pushed into a corner? Sir, if you are insulted over the suggestion that you do not know the definition of a word, then you lead a fragile life. Certainly you haven't displayed any evidence of knowing the meaning of ignorant, but you certainly have displayed ignorance.

LOL! Blueprint response, see ya in a couple of days little buddy.

 

[The Senator]

you just described democracy. and you call yourself a political science major. snort.

UM... I just described a Representative Republic, a variation of Democracy-- but not total, or direct, democracy. It isn't direct democracy because the people do not vote directly on the issues facing them. The people they elect to represent their interests do. Hence, this is why voters should elect their congressmen, senators, governors, presidents, etc.

 

[The Senator]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the definition of ignorant? Yes, clearly you are.

Your definition of ignorance seems to encompass everyone who disagrees with you. Basically, those who don't believe in the second amendment, and those who don't believe that amendments which expand the rights of voters should be repealed so we can send this country back into nineteenth century.

But I want to address this point, Strange. You've gone off the deep end with some of your responses, going so far as to refer to me as 'the worst exhibitor of logic' you've ever seen. You used a similar line when we were discussing conceal/ carry permits on college campuses, and said that I rely on logical fallacies. You even labeled me as an anti-gun nut without doing a little research on this forum to see that I actually believe that people should own a firearm if they can use it responsibly. You've transcended the debate and gone for the jugular, though you missed and barely left a scratch on our shoulders. I don't really care what your political views are. Same thing with most other people here. This is a forum for debate, not a forum to go off and rip peoples' professions or academic lives apart because they disagree with you. Many posters are guilty of being personal or extreme in their posts. Most of it is confined to their political beliefs... for example, I was rightfully targeted for a post where I said the middle east should be nuked if they attack Israel... but it goes much, much further once you go beyond the debate and blatantly insult posters' intellectual abilities or personal lives (my remarks on Israel were soon followed with such a response).

First impressions are vital, especially on this forum. But your posts have left a rather sour taste in my mouth-- not because they point out a certain political belief-- but because you end the debate by referring to many of us as "ignorant" or "the worst exhibitors of logic" because they disagree with you. Learn to debate things out, and don't throw us up against a wall with silly name calling.

 

[CK1]

ig·no·rance (

g

n

r-

ns) n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance

Dictionary: stupidity

(stū-pĭd'ĭ-tē, styū-)

n., pl. -ties.

1. The lack of intelligence.
2. A stupid act, remark, or idea.

http://www.answers.com/topic/stupidity



I don't want to get banned as this is off topic. But Strange wasn't calling anyone Stupid, only ignorant. And ignorance means lack of knowledge of a given subject, not Lack of intelligence. You can fix ignorance with an open mind or reading. You can't fix Stupidity.

Sorry, I had to say something.

 

[SuBe]

Your definition of ignorance seems to encompass everyone who disagrees with you. Basically, those who don't believe in the second amendment, and those who don't believe that amendments which expand the rights of voters should be repealed so we can send this country back into nineteenth century.

But I want to address this point, Strange. You've gone off the deep end with some of your responses, going so far as to refer to me as 'the worst exhibitor of logic' you've ever seen. You used a similar line when we were discussing conceal/ carry permits on college campuses, and said that I rely on logical fallacies. You even labeled me as an anti-gun nut without doing a little research on this forum to see that I actually believe that people should own a firearm if they can use it responsibly. You've transcended the debate and gone for the jugular, though you missed and barely left a scratch on our shoulders. I don't really care what your political views are. Same thing with most other people here. This is a forum for debate, not a forum to go off and rip peoples' professions or academic lives apart because they disagree with you. Many posters are guilty of being personal or extreme in their posts. Most of it is confined to their political beliefs... for example, I was rightfully targeted for a post where I said the middle east should be nuked if they attack Israel... but it goes much, much further once you go beyond the debate and blatantly insult posters' intellectual abilities or personal lives (my remarks on Israel were soon followed with such a response).

First impressions are vital, especially on this forum. But your posts have left a rather sour taste in my mouth-- not because they point out a certain political belief-- but because you end the debate by referring to many of us as "ignorant" or "the worst exhibitors of logic" because they disagree with you. Learn to debate things out, and don't throw us up against a wall with silly name calling.

I agree, we need to keep the debate away from name-calling. It does not good for either side.

 

[Malice]

Guys lets cool it a little...
We have succeedded in having a GREAT political forum without the denegrating comments, we are decending there quickly here..

Stop...Breath...
And post the issues...

 

[The Senator]

ig·no·rance (

g

n

r-

ns) n. The condition of being uneducated, unaware, or uninformed.



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ignorance

Dictionary: stupidity

(stū-pĭd'ĭ-tē, styū-)

n., pl. -ties.

1. The lack of intelligence.
2. A stupid act, remark, or idea.

http://www.answers.com/topic/stupidity



I don't want to get banned as this is off topic. But Strange wasn't calling anyone Stupid, only ignorant. And ignorance means lack of knowledge of a given subject, not Lack of intelligence. You can fix ignorance with an open mind or reading. You can't fix Stupidity.

Sorry, I had to say something.

He referred to posters as ignorant for their personal beliefs. Most of us come up with our beliefs by doing a little research. I didn't wake up one day and say, "hey, I think abortion should be a woman's right to choose!" I researched the topic, asked difficult questions, and came up with a position on my own.

He's referring to people as ignorant simply because he disagrees with what they're saying. Had someone here said "Iran is the worst country in Europe," or "Baptists hate gays," those would be ignorant statements on two extremes: The first one is factually incorrect (as Iran is technically a part of the Asian continent), the second one does not apply to Baptists as a whole, but rather a collection of individuals beliefs from some individual members of the Baptist church.

It's all about tact.

 

[SuBe]

I agree Malice, I believe that the Political Forums are actually the Best on the Hype!, let's keep the cool and keep the flames down.

Back on Topic, I don't believe that DC should be intergrated into any other State, as the original reason behind not doing so would give what ever state too much political power.

 

[Malice]

I will honest here...

What the hell does this mean....

Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Ratified 5/7/1992

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

My interpretation, is I cant vote myself a raise and it take effect immediately, it happens on the next election...is that correct?

 

[SuBe]

I will honest here...

What the hell does this mean....

Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Ratified 5/7/1992

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

My interpretation, is I cant vote myself a raise and it take effect immediately, it happens on the next election...is that correct?

Thats what it sounds like. Is it me or does the Constitition seem to lost some of it's granduer with that one? I'm in love with the Constitition, but do you think that the Politicians now, don't respect it the same?

 

[Malice]

This is a fascinating document, what is amazing to me, is 48,000 characters is the length of our governments concrete base. That to me is amazing.

 

[wiegeabo]

I will honest here...

What the hell does this mean....

Amendment 27 - Limiting Congressional Pay Increases. Ratified 5/7/1992

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

My interpretation, is I cant vote myself a raise and it take effect immediately, it happens on the next election...is that correct?

I believe that's it. It was actually proposed back in 1789 (making it the longest amendment before ratification). Without the amendment, Congress could raise it's own salary every year (if it wanted to). Now, raises can't take effect until after the next election (meaning anyone voting for it may have to face an unhappy populace and not even get to enjoy it).

 

[Malice]

I believe that's it. It was actually proposed back in 1789 (making it the longest amendment before ratification). Without the amendment, Congress could raise it's own salary every year (if it wanted to). Now, raises can't take effect until after the next election (meaning anyone voting for it may have to face an unhappy populace and not even get to enjoy it).

I will be honest, I dont even remember it occurring, of course that year I was graduating High School, so ...hell...I probably would rememeber anything but a nuke hitting my head....Senioritis...

 

[SuBe]

How does everyone feel about the 16th Amendment? The one that allowed the Government to Start the Income Tax? I'm sure you know how I feel.

 

[Malice]

Here is the first of my thoughts on Each Amendment

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thoughts:
This gives you the right to say anything you damn want to and allows you to meet other people in groups to say it as well. For instance, the Nazi Party of the United States...(we wont go into what I think about them *cough-crackpots-cough*)

They have EVERY right to sit have a meeting in public and voice their opinions.

Now, to me this means, say what you want, as long as your free speech does not impact me...there is obviously a very thin line on where your rights stop and mine start.

Religion, I think this means one simple thing. The Federal Government cant START or publically support one religion, thus putting other religions as a minority.

This says nothing about religion being core to our personal beliefs.

Your Comments?

 

[Superman4ever]

He referred to posters as ignorant for their personal beliefs. Most of us come up with our beliefs by doing a little research. I didn't wake up one day and say, "hey, I think abortion should be a woman's right to choose!" I researched the topic, asked difficult questions, and came up with a position on my own.

I brought up the whole ignorant comment (HIS quotes) because he admonished the removal of the state's power to elect it's own official representation (via Amendment 17), its senators, and giving that power to the "power grabbing...ignorant masses", yet advocates the rights of those same ignorant masses' rights to bare arms.

If they can't chose for themselves who can represent their state, then they surely cannot be entrusted with the responsibility of bearing arms.