A Constitutional Amendment That Needs Amending

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu

They were students of history and had observed that nations which dabbled in direct democracy never lasted very long afterwards.

Which nations?

The fact that you don't know should clue you in to their lack of enduring legacy.

a reply to: Byrd

Nope. Now kids get medically mutilated in order to be forced into the socially appropriate gender box. I am not sure how that's any better.

Parental abuse verses state sanctioned medical mutilation and life-long physical illness.

a reply to: ketsuko

Okay Professor. Clue me in. What pre-American "direct democracies" failed shortly after they began? Which democratic nations did the Founding Fathers see as a red flags for our new America?

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe


The Founding Fathers got the Electoral College right.

I think they did, but I still cannot defend the current system (of the past 100 years)
Every part that was meant to provide fairness and equality for the people and oversight of the federal government has been corrupted and bastardized to suit the needs of the two party system. This includes the voting system as well as the electoral college.

When the parties get to decide who the electors are (see your state laws), and the entire system is influenced by bribes and "lobbyists" there is no more room for "we the people"

I attribute this mostly to the corporate personhood, there is NO equality in that format and this has made the electoral college the true battle ground. This is where the current voting system fails.

Which is why, contradictory to my beleifs 15 years ago, i fear a constitutional convention.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ketsuko

Okay Professor. Clue me in. What pre-American "direct democracies" failed shortly after they began? Which democratic nations did the Founding Fathers see as a red flags for our new America?

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” —John Adam

founders.archives.gov...#:~:text=Remember%20Democracy%20never%20lasts%20long,avaricious%20than%20Aristocracy%20or%2 0Monarchy.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Context is everything:

“I might have exhibited as many millions of plebeians sacrificed by the pride, folly, and ambition of their fellow-plebeians and their own, in proportion to the extent and duration of their power. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, Nations and large Bodies of Men, never.”

Basically, Adams is saying all governments will all suffer the same fate. Given the same risks, I choose democracy over aristocracy, monarchy, an oligarchy or a military dictatorship.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Byrd

Nope. Now kids get medically mutilated in order to be forced into the socially appropriate gender box. I am not sure how that's any better.

Parental abuse verses state sanctioned medical mutilation and life-long physical illness.

Have you not actually read the medical protocols?

I have a grandchild who's considering transitioning (and this is Oklahoma, mind you.) My grandchild can't get any medical treatment for gender dysphoria until they have worked with a counselor and there's an okay. They may cut their hair, change pronouns, ask for a new name, dress in the clothing of their preferred gender (which is almost meaningless today). They can use wigs and binders. There's no puberty blockers until a certain age and the child has to be the one asking for it. Counselors and doctors can't initiate that request, nor can the parents.

No operations are done until after age 18 (if available and if possible.)

The direction is all in the hands of the child. The child is not guided into a new gender if they're simply curious about life as the other gender. They can switch back at any time.

Don't read what op-ed and Clickbait articles tell you. Go to PubMed, go to the clinics that offer these services and read what they say.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

That's a heck of a jump. 'No longer have rights' - how hyperbolic.

No. Voting is a citizenship right. Once you take that away from women, you can take away any right - including things they object to (like the right for a fault free divorce or perhaps the right for alimony, etc.)

Taking rights away from a group turns them into second class citizens without a voice. And that's why I asked what the mother or wife would feel about that.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: Byrd

Each state apportions their votes as they see fit, and yes 48/50 are currently winner take all. I prefer how Maine and Nebraska do it, but they apportion by Representative district plus 2 are statewide instead of trying to split by percentages.

I looked at the congressional districts for Texas 2020, it looks like 11 would have gone to Biden and the remaining 25 to Trump, and 2 more to Trump statewide for a total of 11 to 27.

I didn't bother looking that up but yes, 11 to 27... and that would have been much fairer, IMHO, then all 38 to Trump. At least those of us who voted for Biden would have our Constitutional right to have a say in who we elect President fairly counted.

A lot of folks (including conservatives) are darn tired of the 'winner take all' scenario.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
a reply to: Byrd

Each state apportions their votes as they see fit, and yes 48/50 are currently winner take all. I prefer how Maine and Nebraska do it, but they apportion by Representative district plus 2 are statewide instead of trying to split by percentages.

I looked at the congressional districts for Texas 2020, it looks like 11 would have gone to Biden and the remaining 25 to Trump, and 2 more to Trump statewide for a total of 11 to 27.

I didn't bother looking that up but yes, 11 to 27... and that would have been much fairer, IMHO, then all 38 to Trump. At least those of us who voted for Biden would have our Constitutional right to have a say in who we elect President fairly counted.

A lot of folks (including conservatives) are darn tired of the 'winner take all' scenario.

I don't disagree. California would have awarded 6 of it's EV's to Trump, for example. The preference of different regions in each state would have been on display, and the federal power of each state would have been more equally apportioned.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

That's a heck of a jump. 'No longer have rights' - how hyperbolic.

No. Voting is a citizenship right. Once you take that away from women, you can take away any right - including things they object to (like the right for a fault free divorce or perhaps the right for alimony, etc.)

Taking rights away from a group turns them into second class citizens without a voice. And that's why I asked what the mother or wife would feel about that.

This assumes that the majority of the voting population would have desired such, and that the people they elected would follow through.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Context is everything:

“I might have exhibited as many millions of plebeians sacrificed by the pride, folly, and ambition of their fellow-plebeians and their own, in proportion to the extent and duration of their power. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves, Nations and large Bodies of Men, never.”

Basically, Adams is saying all governments will all suffer the same fate. Given the same risks, I choose democracy over aristocracy, monarchy, an oligarchy or a military dictatorship.

So you choose one self-destructive, vain version of 'pride, avarice, ambition and easy gratification' over another. Do you just want to see the world burn no matter what?

Notably the Founders did not give us an Aristocracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy or Military Dictatorship either. The gave us a Republic, if we can keep it. We're not doing such a great job, because there are people who think that a Democracy would be better. (Among other reasons.)

a reply to: Teikiatsu

The gave us a Republic, if we can keep it.

China is also a Republic.

The Founding Fathers gave us a representative republic, that uses democracy as its representative vehicle.

So you choose one self-destructive, vain version of 'pride, avarice, ambition and easy gratification' over another.

The Founding Fathers did. According to Adams' logic, the USA was destined to someday self-destruct as soon as it was created.

Having state legislator choose our national representative, instead of the people, would just bring that self-destruction one step closer.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

This assumes that the majority of the voting population would have desired such, and that the people they elected would follow through.

Yes, that's my point. There will be opposition but generally the argument from a different stance can allow for compromise or consideration of other solutions which may be even better. To the losing side, the data will indicate how strong their case is and how much of a chance they have to alter or offer compromise (or to change their own ideas.)

Taking away someone's voice; their ability to participate in government and to have their voice heard (even if it doesn't agree with the majority) says that an individual is not fully a citizen. We do this in some states to criminals.

To disenfranchise an entire group of people (women) based on a physical trait alone (being a woman) makes no sense and empowers the majority to do things like ban people from voting because they have pale skin.

We've been through that before.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Teikiatsu

The gave us a Republic, if we can keep it.

China is also a Republic.

Sheesh.

Seriously.

a reply to: Byrd

Then you have a much worse opinion of humanity than I do.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

please stop , why does everyone get this wrong when the information is right there...
The US Constitution established a "federal democratic republic"

a reply to: datguy

Good try, Congressman Clyburn. Good try.

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: Sookiechacha

please stop , why does everyone get this wrong when the information is right there...
The US Constitution established a "federal democratic republic"

I used to call us a democratic republic, here on ATS, but i got smacked down so many times that now I refer to it as a representative republic. The term "democracy" isn't in the constitution, but representation is thoroughly covered. However, I accept that the USA a democratic republic just as easily.

republic, form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body. Modern republics are founded on the idea that sovereignty rests with the people,

Because citizens do not govern the state themselves but through representatives, republics may be distinguished from direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large republics. The term republic may also be applied to any form of government in which the head of state is not a hereditary monarch.

www.britannica.com...

America is a Representative Democracy
However, just because Americans do not vote on all laws and decisions does not mean that America is not a democracy.
..........
A representative republic is a form of government where the head of state is not a monarch or a dictator but a representative of the people, who is usually elected. The people have the power to control the country’s decisions instead of the elite doing so arbitrarily

constitutionus.com...

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Seriously.

It's called "The People's Republic of China". Did you not know that? Is that news to you?