Reply #22: the CONSTITUTION is a crime against democracy [View All]

kodi "what appalling rhetoric. Crime you say? Since when is a form of government a crime?"

When it is morally illegitimate. By what standard? That government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. Surely you have heard of that phrase.

"And just tell us, who made you arbiter of judgment in this matter?
Are you some sort of God?"

Speaking of appalling rhetoric. My observation is based on the math of how representative our federal government is of the people... whether it insures civic equality where all votes weigh the same... and whether it provides each generation the ability to make government responsive to IT'S needs.

"Repeatedly on this site your posts have demanded that democracy be cast exclusively by your own definition, relegating other forms of representative forms of government as heretical to your philosophy of "democracy"."

See above.

"Apparently, your abundant posts on this topic indicate an utter ignorance or contempt of what drove the Framers of the US Constitution to form the US government as a federal representative democracy."

I FULLY understand the rationale for the origins of the Constitution. What I do NOT agree with is that citizens should feel they are bound by the politics of 1787. The Framers did what they had to forge a stronger nation. But the notion that they incorporated the best ideas of the time is ludicrous. Many of the lofty principles of the Declaration of Independence were compromised away. Soon they were forgotten. That is except for some courageous citizens that knew that slavery had to be opposed... women and people of color deserved the vote etc.... REGARDLESS if the Framers thought differently. Well there's one LAST group of citizens that have been Constitutionally disenfranchised: citizens in large population states. It's time someone advocated for THEIR rights.

"I have not seen in even one of your posts any critical analysis of why the Framers of the US Constitution got it wrong when they made our government. All I have read from such posts is a knee-jerk "one man, one vote" attitude, devoid of any historical context."

Why is what happened 220 years ago relevant today? Then there were 13 colonies, each who jealously protected their sovereignty and prerogatives. The nation either had a stronger national government or devolved into chaos. The Framer's solutions accomplished what they were supposed to: unified the nation. But this is today. Yet you treat the Constitution... as dysfunctional and anti-democratic as it is... even after a Bush was IMPOSED upon the nation, as if it were handed down on a slab.

"The Framers recognized that the pure form of democracy you worship was never historically sustainable, and in fact the primary cause of the utter dissolution of those governments was due to the actions of direct democracy."

RED HERRING ALERT: Have I EVER suggested "pure" or "direct" democracy" Retraction noted as if offered.

"Your posts on this subject show no clear understanding of that. States also have rights and carry out responsibilities under this federal democratic republic, not just citizens."

I'm well aware of our system of dual suffrage. I think the concept has to be revisited... ESPECIALLY since it's at the root of why Bush is President today. There is NO escaping this fact that the Constitution has FAILED its job to produce morally legitimate government.

"If you wish to debate why they should not have rights and responsibilities under a federal form of government, or if you wish to show us in detail how a pure democracy is sustainable, do so, because no one in history has been able to do it yet. "

RED HERRING ALERT 2: Why is it that this infamous red herring about direct democracy refuses to die? Do YOU have any idea where YOU picked it up? It SHOULD be obvious that we could have a representative democracy without state suffrage... with a Bill of Rights... expanded if need be... and the states could STILL remain as semi-sovereign legal entities. The rest of your red herring rant is repetitive and already been addressed.

But since I'm sure you still don't get it... you really need to rethink what constitutes morally legitimate government. Let me borrow a passage from REYNOLDS v. SIMS which outlawed vote weighing schemes in the state. While the federal government is immune to this decision... the logic is compelling... at least to those who believe in democratic concepts. Obviously you do not.
Source http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533

Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system. It could hardly be gainsaid that a constitutional claim had been asserted by an allegation that certain otherwise qualified voters had been entirely prohibited from voting for members of their state legislature. And, if a State should provide that the votes of citizens in one part of the State should be given two times, or five times, or 10 times the weight of votes of citizens in another part of the State, it could hardly be contended that the right to vote of those residing in the disfavored areas had not been effectively diluted. It would appear extraordinary to suggest that a State could be constitutionally permitted to enact a law providing that certain of the State's voters could vote two, five, or 10 times for their legislative representatives, while voters living elsewhere could vote only once. And it is inconceivable that a state law to the effect that, in counting votes for legislators, the votes of citizens in one part of the State would be multiplied by two, five, or 10, while the votes of persons in another area would be counted only at face value, could be constitutionally sustainable. Of course, the effect of <377 U.S. 533, 563> state legislative districting schemes which give the same number of representatives to unequal numbers of constituents is identical. 40 Overweighting and overvaluation of the votes of those living here has the certain effect of dilution and undervaluation of the votes of those living there. The resulting discrimination against those individual voters living in disfavored areas is easily demonstrable mathematically. Their right to vote is simply not the same right to vote as that of those living in a favored part of the State. Two, five, or 10 of them must vote before the effect of their voting is equivalent to that of their favored neighbor. Weighting the votes of citizens differently, by any method or means, merely because of where they happen to reside, hardly seems justifiable. One must be ever aware that the Constitution forbids "sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes of discrimination." Lane v. Wilson, 307 U.S. 268, 275 ; Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 342 . As we stated in Wesberry v. Sanders, supra: