Individual perceptions

homeagain wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: Sorry Home as far as I am concerned Palin is old news. I might as well say that the dem party has no credibility because of all the elected dems currently doing time . Discussing either is a waste of time.

NOT old news...THIS is why the Tea Party has a perception problem

www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/palin...annoy-haters-n235866

No that is not why. The left and the right hate them because they could upset their game of power politics, patronage, graft and corruption and never miss an opportunity to slander it.

Remember: "The problems we face will
NOT be solved by the minds
that created them."

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: I would like to take the country back to having two equal votes cast for president by the electors chosen by the States (Repeal of the 12th Amendment).

From my understanding, the 12th Amendment was passed to help address the possibility of a tie in the Electoral College when they vote for a President (and the Vice President). How would you address that possibility should it occur again? Along those same lines, there's some support for doing away entirely with the Electoral College and relying solely on the popular vote to elect the President. How do you feel about that?

The solution to a perceived problem has resulted in another one that is far more damaging to the Union. The perceived problem that you mention was anticipated and provided for in the original text of the Constitution. And while the statists would love to see the EC abolished in favor of pure democracy to decide the presidency, that "solution" requires traveling further down the current path that is so hostile to the idea of the republic established by the Constitution.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: I would like to take the country back to having the Senators of each State chosen in a manner decided by the individual States (Repeal of the 17th Amendment).

How would you have the individual states choose their senators? Again, I'm simply asking. I don't see the individual states being very consistent in this process simply given the reasons for passage of the 17th Amendment in the first place. Prior to passage, weren't senators elected basically by the state legislatures? My understanding of the reason for the 17th amendment was because of the possibility legislative election could be fraught with problems

such as deadlocks within legislatures resulting in vacancies remaining unfilled for substantial intervals, the influencing of legislative selection by corrupt political organizations and special interest groups through purchase of legislative seats, and the neglect of duties by legislators as a consequence of protracted electoral contests

( constitution.findlaw.com/amendment17.html ).

Here I include the link because I've taken a quote directly from the 17th Amendment Annotations this site provided. They go on to talk about how some of the states, prior to ratification, had tried to address this issue. Whether every state would have eventually done so is, apparently, still in question, hence my question to you regarding how the states, themselves, should elect their senators.

The job of the Senators is to represent their State government, its executive, its legislature, its courts, in the Congress. That is a difficult, if not impossible, objective to achieve when the entity that is the object of the representation has no voice in the choosing of the representative, isn't it? And this, then, explains how a concentration of power at the federal level has been achieved; the other co-ordinate levels of government, which are supposed to serve as one of the checks against federal usurpation of power, have been effectively rendered mute. If there is to be a return to co-ordinate levels of government, that deficiency must be addressed and their representation restored. The attempt to solve the perceived problems you mention have resulted in the creation of an even larger problem. Whether that larger problem is an intentional result of a deliberate attempt to undermine the Constitution or an accidental one is immaterial. To correct the current path towards a United State, the representation, and the voice, of the State governments in the Congress must be restored. Another potential benefit comes with the realization that the Senators chosen by the State government to represent it would be, almost by default, a compromise resulting from the factions of the State legislatures wishing to have a representative in Congress. That choice, the result of a legislative compromise, might then not be so rigid themselves when legislative compromise at the federal level is necessary and might also result in the factions within the State legislature building trust that allowed them to work together on other State business before them.

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: I would like to see an amendment to the Constitution that required 2/3 of both houses of Congress to vote in the affirmative to incur (additional) public debt.

The only potential problem I see with this is regarding conduct of war. As you and I have already discussed, wars are never fought with adequate funding being allocated up front. It's all added to the national public debt after the fact. How would this issue be addressed?

A larger majority being necessary to obtain the funding for a war would serve to ensure that prosecution of the war was necessary to promote the general welfare of the Union, would it not? Would not requirement for a larger majority result in a greater willingness to compromise that seems to be the general consensus as to what is currently lacking in Congress at the moment?

ZHawke wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: In short, what I want to take the Union back to is a Union of States, plural, instead of continuing down the pathway to a United State (singular). That means a federal government limited to the very few powers expressly delegated to it by the Constitution and absent the ones it has created for itself through creative "interpretation" of the compact. The only time there exists a "United States Citizen" is when the citizen of one of the States is currently outside the boundaries of the Union itself where the federal government has been delegated sole authority to represent all of the States and their Citizens. I am not a citizen of all 50 of the States, there is no person who is. We are all citizens of only one of the 50 States that belong to the Union.

On the face of it, your posit makes sense. We've discussed this one before, too. I'm concerned, however, with the "sovereignty" issue you appear to want to delegate to the states from the perspective of secession from the Union. There has been significant coverage of movements in several states to actually secede from the Union and to form new countries. How should this possibility be addressed as a Union, and how should individual states address the issue?

What good does it do to hold people against their will Z? Were I to hold you against your will I would be committing a criminal act. How is a coalition of States holding another State against its will any different? Associations are voluntary, they have to be. Could the United States not withdraw from the UN compact if they desired to do so? Could it not withdraw itself from a treaty which was harming the Union? Is a marriage between States the only marriage that is truly "until death do us part"? If the proverbial ship of state is sinking, why on earth should Colorado be forced to go down with it?

With regard to the sovereignty issue, there really isn't one. Under our system the government isn't sovereign, it is the people who are. This is very clearly stated in Article II Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution which unambiguously states that all political power is derived from the people, all government originates from the people. That can't be true unless it is the people, and not their government, that is sovereign. Article II Section 2 says that the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, independent and sovereign State. It is also very clearly stated in the preamble of the federal Constitution. "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union . . ." It is the people of the United States that are sovereign, not their government. We can alter or abolish our government at will, both at the State and the federal level. We do not have a sovereign because we, ourselves, are sovereign. Our president, our Congress, our courts, our State legislators, our governors are not our sovereign, rather our servant. A servant is never sovereign. This, too, is a fundamental concept that I wish to see a return to.

BlazerBob wrote:

homeagain wrote:

BlazerBob wrote: Sorry Home as far as I am concerned Palin is old news. I might as well say that the dem party has no credibility because of all the elected dems currently doing time . Discussing either is a waste of time.

NOT old news...THIS is why the Tea Party has a perception problem

www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/palin...annoy-haters-n235866

No that is not why. The left and the right hate them because they could upset their game of power politics, patronage, graft and corruption and never miss an opportunity to slander it.

Remember: "The problems we face will
NOT be solved by the minds
that created them."

[/b]

Oh I NEVER forget the above...THAT is why I am politely asking you to engage in a dialogue about the
Tea Party...as an INDY, I am NOT content with the same old same old..the D's and R's have shown me NOTHING to bring me to the voting booth and IF your party is based on INTEGRITY (as you have stated)then I am OPEN to this platform and your parties intent. HOWEVER, the glaring and gauche posturing of Palin is a deterrent for my vote.

There is nothing but the same old same old home. There are two main theories of thought with regards to governing. Those who believe it is best done with a powerful central government and those who believe that a decentralized approach will yield a better result. Find the candidate that:

A: Has a chance of winning the election and
B: Shares more of your outlook than the other candidate

At this point in time the reality of the situation is this. Either Hickenlooper or Beauprez is going to be the next governor of Colorado. Either Gardner or Udall is going to be the next Senator from Colorado.

If you vote for any other candidate, even though that candidate may espouse more of your principles, or don't vote at all, you are essentially deciding to allow others to decide who is going to be governing you. That is the only effective result of not voting for, or against, any of these four candidates.

Two years from now the same will be true with regards to the nominees for President. When it comes down to the time to actually cast the vote there will be two, and only two, candidates who have a chance of emerging as the victor in the election. If you want candidates that bring "something to the table" then you need to spend the next two years ensuring that person has a chance of actually winning the election.

If you want to actually be able to pick from a field of candidates then we have to do away with the primary system and the ability of a party to whittle down the field to a single candidate from that party.

Because, when all is said and done, does it really matter if a candidate wins the election with a 25% share of the votes from nearly everyone who is qualified to cast a vote or slightly more than 50% of the vote from less than half of the qualified voters?

PS..as it appears now,in this half-way point...the "DYNASTIES" are going to be the front runners in 2016
and THAT is so NOT right...( I do NOT see anyone on the horizon who would change that)..but, I AM impressed with Trey Gowdy,who is not a contender.)

Then you need to spend the next 2 years working towards making Trey Gowdy a contender instead of waiting for the next round of primary elections and attempting to do it then. FWIW, Gowdy would be considered a "TEA Party" Republican from all that I have seen of him. You might have quite a bit in common with that group despite your dislike of their, perhaps, most visible member.

PrintSmith wrote: The solution to a perceived problem has resulted in another one that is far more damaging to the Union. The perceived problem that you mention was anticipated and provided for in the original text of the Constitution. And while the statists would love to see the EC abolished in favor of pure democracy to decide the presidency, that "solution" requires traveling further down the current path that is so hostile to the idea of the republic established by the Constitution.

This wasn't a "perceived" problem. The election of 1800 pointed out what many considered to be a "flaw" in the Constitution. As a direct result, the 12th Amendment was passed and ratified.

PrintSmith wrote: The job of the Senators is to represent their State government, its executive, its legislature, its courts, in the Congress. That is a difficult, if not impossible, objective to achieve when the entity that is the object of the representation has no voice in the choosing of the representative, isn't it? And this, then, explains how a concentration of power at the federal level has been achieved; the other co-ordinate levels of government, which are supposed to serve as one of the checks against federal usurpation of power, have been effectively rendered mute. If there is to be a return to co-ordinate levels of government, that deficiency must be addressed and their representation restored. The attempt to solve the perceived problems you mention have resulted in the creation of an even larger problem. Whether that larger problem is an intentional result of a deliberate attempt to undermine the Constitution or an accidental one is immaterial. To correct the current path towards a United State, the representation, and the voice, of the State governments in the Congress must be restored. Another potential benefit comes with the realization that the Senators chosen by the State government to represent it would be, almost by default, a compromise resulting from the factions of the State legislatures wishing to have a representative in Congress. That choice, the result of a legislative compromise, might then not be so rigid themselves when legislative compromise at the federal level is necessary and might also result in the factions within the State legislature building trust that allowed them to work together on other State business before them.

The job of a senator is, in fact, to represent the states. Whether that means the actual government of the states or the people of those states who elect the state government officials is a question that apparently was answered by passage and ratification of the 17th Amendment. I believe the "reasons" given for why the passage and ratification of the 17th Amendment are more relevant than those for going back to the days prior to.

When you ask, "isn't it", I assume you mean this as a rhetorical question.

PrintSmith wrote: A larger majority being necessary to obtain the funding for a war would serve to ensure that prosecution of the war was necessary to promote the general welfare of the Union, would it not? Would not requirement for a larger majority result in a greater willingness to compromise that seems to be the general consensus as to what is currently lacking in Congress at the moment?

Should it not also follow then that a war must have funding allocated to cover any expenses incurred in carrying it out up front instead of on the back end?

When you ask, "would it not", I assume you mean this as a rhetorical question.

PrintSmith wrote: What good does it do to hold people against their will Z? Were I to hold you against your will I would be committing a criminal act. How is a coalition of States holding another State against its will any different? Associations are voluntary, they have to be. Could the United States not withdraw from the UN compact if they desired to do so? Could it not withdraw itself from a treaty which was harming the Union? Is a marriage between States the only marriage that is truly "until death do us part"? If the proverbial ship of state is sinking, why on earth should Colorado be forced to go down with it?

You might want to consider giving this one a bit more consideration, PrintSmith.

PrintSmith wrote: With regard to the sovereignty issue, there really isn't one. Under our system the government isn't sovereign, it is the people who are. This is very clearly stated in Article II Section 1 of the Colorado Constitution which unambiguously states that all political power is derived from the people, all government originates from the people. That can't be true unless it is the people, and not their government, that is sovereign. Article II Section 2 says that the people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, independent and sovereign State. It is also very clearly stated in the preamble of the federal Constitution. "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union . . ." It is the people of the United States that are sovereign, not their government. We can alter or abolish our government at will, both at the State and the federal level. We do not have a sovereign because we, ourselves, are sovereign. Our president, our Congress, our courts, our State legislators, our governors are not our sovereign, rather our servant. A servant is never sovereign. This, too, is a fundamental concept that I wish to see a return to.

Again, you might want to give this one a little more consideration, PrintSmith.

ZHawke wrote: This wasn't a "perceived" problem. The election of 1800 pointed out what many considered to be a "flaw" in the Constitution. As a direct result, the 12th Amendment was passed and ratified.

Oh, but it was a perceived problem. Look up the definition of the word Z. It doesn't mean what you think it means. The word derives from Latin, percipere, to lay hold of, to grasp. some of its synonyms are discover, note, observe. So yes, Z, they were perceived problems, just as I noted they were. The flaw lay not in the Constitution, but in the statist of the day who decided an opportunity existed to thwart the will of the very people they were elected to serve, a practice which continues to this day among those with that mindset with the passage of the ACA despite a majority of the people in the United States expressing opposition to the legislation both before and after the actions of the modern day statists in Congress and the White House.

I'll reply to the rest of yuur response later. It will take more than a quick vocabulary lesson to address.

PrintSmith wrote: Oh, but it was a perceived problem. Look up the definition of the word Z. It doesn't mean what you think it means. The word derives from Latin, percipere, to lay hold of, to grasp. some of its synonyms are discover, note, observe. So yes, Z, they were perceived problems, just as I noted they were. The flaw lay not in the Constitution, but in the statist of the day who decided an opportunity existed to thwart the will of the very people they were elected to serve, a practice which continues to this day among those with that mindset with the passage of the ACA despite a majority of the people in the United States expressing opposition to the legislation both before and after the actions of the modern day statists in Congress and the White House.

I'll reply to the rest of yuur response later. It will take more than a quick vocabulary lesson to address.

Oh, dear! Oh, my! You got me! On the definition, that is.

I beg to differ, however, on your premise the "flaw lay not in the Constitution". Putting forward a "Statist" conspiracy, once again, to promote your own agenda - priceless.

Reality - the election of 1800 resulted in a tie.

Result - that reality resulted in a flaw in the Constitution be noted/perceived.

Reality - many at that time saw the tie in the election of 1800 to be a flaw in the Constitution.

Result - to help address that flaw that was noted/perceived, the 12th amendment to the Constitution was passed and ratified.


Your condescension regarding "a quick vocabulary lesson" is noted.

PrintSmith wrote: Then you need to spend the next 2 years working towards making Trey Gowdy a contender instead of waiting for the next round of primary elections and attempting to do it then. FWIW, Gowdy would be considered a "TEA Party" Republican from all that I have seen of him. You might have quite a bit in common with that group despite your dislike of their, perhaps, most visible member.

THEN, BB's party would be WISE to promote him and put MORE distance between their cause and
Palin's posturing...JMO

As to Rick's comment (that I just now read, hard to keep up with threads)...I view myself as HUMANISTIC,rather than a D or R.(thus INDY). The TEA Party has positioned themselves as
"the change that is needed"...THAT requires an herculean effort and from what I see, they are ineffective
and require a LEADER that will lead. JMO (it is unfortunate that BB will not engage in a clear and honest
effort to promote his party.).....JMO