Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-12-2005, 12:34 AM
ACPlayer ACPlayer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Foxwoods, Atlantic City, NY, Boston
Posts: 1,089
Default Contact them today!

Thank Snowe, Collins, McCain and Chaffee for opposing the nuclear option.

Urge Hagel, Spector, and Warner (who want to vote against the option but are being pressured to vote against their own convctions) to vote their conscience on this issue. Remind them of Madison's admomishments about the dangers of factions, including factions in the majority :

Federalist Papers Number 10

Some extracts, though the whole is definitely a must read.

[ QUOTE ]
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

[/ QUOTE ]
He then provides arguments that lead to the following conclusions:

[ QUOTE ]
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

[/ QUOTE ]
On controlling the runaway faction:

[ QUOTE ]
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-12-2005, 12:19 PM
jaxmike jaxmike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 636
Default Re: Contact them today!

Your ignorance is amazing. Your point works just as well to support the nuclear option as it does to oppose it.

In fact it probably SUPPORTS the "nuclear" (read CONSTITUTIONAL) option more than it does oppose it. It's not the Republicans who have radicalized on the issue, its the Democrats.

From your "support"

[ QUOTE ]
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read, if the minority is obstructing, relief is supplied in the republican principle which allows the majority to defeat the minority with a regular vote. Which, in the end, is all the Republicans want, a vote. Not obstruction.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-12-2005, 01:41 PM
ACPlayer ACPlayer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Foxwoods, Atlantic City, NY, Boston
Posts: 1,089
Default Re: Contact them today!

Read the document again.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-12-2005, 01:52 PM
CORed CORed is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 273
Default Re: Contact them today!

[ QUOTE ]
Read the document again.

[/ QUOTE ]

He won't understand it, no matter how many times he reads it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-12-2005, 02:47 PM
jaxmike jaxmike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 636
Default Re: Contact them today!

[ QUOTE ]
Read the document again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, I have read it and the argument is just as powerful AGANIST your postition as it is for it. If you cannot see that, you are even less intelligent than I had previously believed.

[ QUOTE ]
measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that this is what you are basing your nonsense on. Well, here goes. The rights of the minority party and the rules of justice are NOT being infringed upon. In fact, they are being validated more than anything. Here is what I mean. By using the "consitutional option" the RULE OF JUSTICE is being restored and the rights of the minority are being recognized. The rights they have, as opposed to the rights they do not have. In the 200+ years of the history of the Senate, at no time, up till now, has a filibusted been used on Judicial appointments. The RULE of JUSTICE is being confirmed IF the Senate changes its rules to forbid the filibuster of judicial nominees. Why? Because the Constitution GRANTS each branch of Congress the POWER to make its own rules. Furthermore, at NO point in the Constitution does it state the a SUPERMAJORITY is needed to confirm a judicial nominee.

[ QUOTE ]
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is straight from the Federalist papers. Do you at least admit that the rogue Senators who are intolerantly filibustering these nominees (many of which are minority) fall into the definition of a faction?

[ QUOTE ]
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all we are really talking about here. A vote. The Democrats are OBSTRUCTING the work of the Senate and FAILING in their RESPONSIBILITY to provide ADVICE AND CONSENT to the Presidents nominees.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-12-2005, 02:47 PM
jaxmike jaxmike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 636
Default Re: Contact them today!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Read the document again.

[/ QUOTE ]

He won't understand it, no matter how many times he reads it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I understand it troll.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-12-2005, 03:01 PM
ACPlayer ACPlayer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Foxwoods, Atlantic City, NY, Boston
Posts: 1,089
Default Re: Contact them today!

The papers warn of factions that are both in the majority and in the minority. Of course when the Dems gang up to oppose a nomination they fit the definition of a faction. Similarly when the Dems gang up (when they are in control of the govt) to push a candidate they are a faction. He explicitly warns of the danger of all factions. He further points out that those in the minority can only obstruct, it cannot change the rules or pass legislation. The danger of the majority is that it can pass legislation and force its viewpoint. This is the insight he offers. He says that there is a danger when a faction in the majority can impose its views that may be detrimental.

The fedeal structure was implemented with this in mind. Which is why Mr Zee's has a bigger voice in the senate than do I. WHich is why even though a majority of votes went to Al Gore Bush became president.

Which is why, it is a long term danger if the majority can always push through anything in Congress. Specially if that is changes to rules or lifetime appointments.

The papers are an exercise in nuance. Your bludgeoning approach needs to be modified to understand it, IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-12-2005, 03:15 PM
jaxmike jaxmike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 636
Default Re: Contact them today!

[ QUOTE ]
The papers warn of factions that are both in the majority and in the minority. Of course when the Dems gang up to oppose a nomination they fit the definition of a faction. Similarly when the Dems gang up (when they are in control of the govt) to push a candidate they are a faction. He explicitly warns of the danger of all factions. He further points out that those in the minority can only obstruct, it cannot change the rules or pass legislation. The danger of the majority is that it can pass legislation and force its viewpoint. This is the insight he offers. He says that there is a danger when a faction in the majority can impose its views that may be detrimental.

The fedeal structure was implemented with this in mind. Which is why Mr Zee's has a bigger voice in the senate than do I. WHich is why even though a majority of votes went to Al Gore Bush became president.

Which is why, it is a long term danger if the majority can always push through anything in Congress. Specially if that is changes to rules or lifetime appointments.

The papers are an exercise in nuance. Your bludgeoning approach needs to be modified to understand it, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I understand them just fine. However, I wanted you to admit that the papers are talking AS much about an intolerant minority (the current Senate Democrats) as a oppressive majority (which I don't think the cowardly Republican Senators qualify as).

I don't see how you can have a problem with the Rep's changing the rules and NOT have a problem with the Dem's using filibuster on Judicial Nominations. The CONSTITUTION CLEARLY DEFINES the cases where a SUPERMAJORITY is needed. IT is not with Judicial nominees.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-12-2005, 03:55 PM
ACPlayer ACPlayer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Foxwoods, Atlantic City, NY, Boston
Posts: 1,089
Default Re: Contact them today!

However, I wanted you to admit that the papers are talking AS much about an intolerant minority

That is the first thing I did in my post.



I don't see how you can have a problem with the Rep's changing the rules and NOT have a problem with the Dem's using filibuster on Judicial Nominations

Because I recognize that the filibuster is a break against a runaway majority. It is not important whether in this case the majority is in the right or the wrong. I also recognize that we are moving towards a system where the executive has more power than the other branches and that this is dangerous. Take the nominiations being sent up for renomination -- the senate rejected the nominees following the rules in place, the president insists on further polarization of the body politic by resubmitting the nominations, and then gets his sycophancts to change the rules to ensure passage.

The consititution does not address, as far as I know, what kind of majority the senate needs to exercise its role.

I do see that the role of the senate on nominations is less about advice and consent and more about pushing the President's appointments.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-12-2005, 04:24 PM
kurto kurto is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Connecticutt
Posts: 41
Default Re: Contact them today!

[ QUOTE ]
I also recognize that we are moving towards a system where the executive has more power than the other branches and that this is dangerous. Take the nominiations being sent up for renomination -- the senate rejected the nominees following the rules in place, the president insists on further polarization of the body politic by resubmitting the nominations, and then gets his sycophancts to change the rules to ensure passage.


[/ QUOTE ]

Heart of the matter.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.