How do we get that bill introduced? On 8/31/09, Robert Holtzman <hol...@cox.net> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 05:16:39PM -0700, Austin William Wright wrote: >> Jason Spatafore wrote: >> > Give me direct vote on all laws that are presented to Congress. That is >> > all I ask. Until then, this conversation is pretty much over. It's going >> > to be a constant republican vs. democrat vs. independent debate that >> > constantly occurs every single day. > > ..............snip............... > >> Wrong sir. Our founding fathers were VERY AFRAID that this kind of >> thinking would some day emerge, and they set up very plain language in >> the Constitution to try and prevent that. "/Congress shall make no >> law...//abridging the freedom of speech"/ It doesn't get much clearer >> than that. How about "/The powers not delegated to the United States by >> the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to >> the States respectively, or to the people./" >> >> We are NOT a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. There are >> rulers, and there are the ruled, and with the implication that the >> rulers are always better off, a constitution was written that severely >> limited the power of any one person or group of people. The founding >> fathers recognized the danger of one group of people appointing the >> rulers - that is why no one group of people does so. It is why the >> president with the consent of the senate appoints judges, it is why >> judges hold lifetime office, it is why we have the electoral college >> system - so no one person has all the power. If you cannot explicitly >> find where in the Constitution a power is delegated to a particular >> individual, that power is unconstitutional to hold. Period. If you want >> to change it, I suggest you propose an amendment, because the meaning of >> our constitution DOES NOT CHANGE. If it did, there would be no way to >> enforce it or seek out its enemies, "foreign or domestic." Selectively >> interpreting the Constitution is a very slippery slope that will lead to >> disaster, or people in power who you do not agree with (our current and >> previous presidents come to mind). Selectively interpreting the >> Constitution will inevitably lead to your loss of any right granted to >> you under it, because "the majority of people think so." >> >> Democracy is nothing but tyranny of the majority. I was walking through >> Boston recently, and coming to the Holocaust memorial I saw a quote, a >> common variation of which goes as follows: >> >> First they came for the Jews >> and I did not speak out >> because I was not a Jew. >> Then they came for the Communists >> and I did not speak out >> because I was not a Communist. >> Then they came for the trade unionists >> and I did not speak out >> because I was not a trade unionist. >> Then they came for me >> and there was no one left >> to speak out for me. >> >> Martin Niemöller >> >> This serves as a warning, democracy does not protect rights. It enforces >> the coercive will of the majority. > > ...and that's exactly what some of the contributers to this thread are > espousing. Someone finally caught it. > > I didn't snip Austin Wright's post because it bears repeating and repeating > :and repeating! > > -- > Bob Holtzman > Key ID: 8D549279 > "If you think you're getting free lunch, > check the price of the beer" >
-- http://linuxgazette.net/165/kachold.html (623)239-3392 (503)754-4452 www.obnosis.com --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss