Posted on 05/07/2015 10:39:47 AM PDT by wagglebee
Well stated. I belong to a church, but it is a conservative, bible-oriented small church. I’m very happy there.
"Conversion Therapy" is what Leftist pro-homosexual sex people call it -using the term invokes a false premise. In reality the therapy entails basic behavioral psychology that seeks to change behaviors NOT change a state of being.
The headline is misleading and plays to the emotions of the uniformed and stupid. The SCOTUS cannot possibly hear every noteworthy controversy and as a result, it selects and rejects cases to hear based upon a number of factors, many of which have nothing to do with the merits of the case, such as standing, justifiability, and jurisdiction. In addition, the SCOTUS has historically limited review to issues that have produced conflicting opinions among the circuit court of appeals or raise issues or extreme national importance that require an immediate determination (i.e., Gore v. Bush). And sometimes the conservative or liberal faction of the court will turn down a case simply because the fact pattern or legal issues are ill defined and as a result, there is the risk that the Court will issue a bad decision and precedent that could poison future cases.
Four Supreme Court justices need to vote “yes” for the Court to hear a case. The Court was apparently unable to get four yes votes from three conservatives and two republicans. This suggests to me that the case does not meet the historical standards for Supreme Court review.
Thanks again
Of course I'm aware of this. However, NOTHING you have written in even addresses the fact that your entire thesis is predicated on the belief that state governments will do a better job than the federal government. You seem to distrust the federal government while implicitly trusting the states to do the right thing; I, on the other hand, don't trust EITHER of them to preserve rights.
Further you have seemingly chosen to ignore my request that you offer any evidence that the composition of the Senate would be demonstrably different if Senators were appointed by state legislatures. You don't address the FACT that members of the legislatures are often among the most powerful members of the state party; I am unaware of a SINGLE senator who didn't have nearly unanimous support of his party members in the state legislature when he was elected.
What you are arguing in favor of is amending the Constitution in such a way that takes the power to elect senators AWAY FROM WE THE PEOPLE and gives more power to the state. This is contrary to the principles of individual rights, will strengthen the oligarchical structure and end any possibility of grass roots resistance. I have mentioned what happened here in Virginia last summer (and I realize it deals with the House and not the Senate, but the principle remains) where grass roots efforts resulted in Dave Brat beating Eric Cantor for the GOP nomination, I can assure you that this would have NEVER been the case if left to the Virginia General Assembly.
Now to the notion of "states rights", there is a huge difference between "rights" which are inherent and "powers" which are enumerated by We the People. The phrase "states rights" appears NOWHERE in the Constitution, like the non-existent "separation of church and state" (a phrase that not surprisingly was found in the Constitution of the Soviet Union), this phrase was espoused by those who wanted to justify a state's power to strip people of their God-given rights. Prior to the Civil War fifteen states exercised their "right" to declare that huge portions of their population were property rather than persons and therefore had no rights.
When individual rights come into conflict with states rights, the states will ALWAYS win and the Founding Fathers knew this, our Constitution is designed to protect the individual from the state and the states. Libertarians wish to bestow upon the fifty states a mantle of nobility that is not only unmerited, but quite dangerous as well.
I agree with that problem, up to a point. These kind of problems can never be fully ‘fixed,’ at least not in the way of making it as if they never happened.
But the problems can be treated and integrated. The traumatic experiences can’t go away, but it definitely helps with the symptoms and the behavior and the mental damage that comes with.
Helped me, for sure.
***
Also, with the way that the government is going, I wouldn’t even call it ‘lesser evil’ any more. It’s not, ‘I think he’s the best choice, even if I don’t like his fiscal policy’ any more. It’s like choosing whether to take arsenic or hemlock.
As far as amendments go, I would get rid of the 16th, 17th, rewrite the 14th, and add a life at conception amendment, add a term limits for judges amendment, an amendment requiring a total annual budget by a date certain, a marriage amendment, a prohibition of federal control and/or ownership of land amendment, an amendment giving enforcement power to Congress, and an amendment requiring advice and consent on executive actions.
In an ideal world, it is easier to have influence over a smaller piece of geography than over a larger. That was the purpose of the senators being selected by the state legislature. My state legislative district here in southern ohio can be driven across in an hour. I know my state rep, I know many who know him, I’ve met him a number of times, and I actually know what he believes.
If I had to pick a delegate to select a senator, he’s on the list of one I’d pick from our area. Ideally, this is replicated throughout our state.
And that is why a properly functioning legislative selection of a senator is a better idea than a state wide campaign, in my opinion.
I don’t often disagree with you, Wags. Maybe if I didn’t know my state legislator, I’d feel differently. But, I don’t think it’s hard anywhere in the USA for a person to know their local state rep....or work to replace one.
In an ideal world this is probably true, it's certainly more likely in rural areas than urban ones. However, I'm not aware of any senators who didn't have the full support of their party members in the legislature.
My college roommate is a Virginia State Senator, he's a conservative from a VERY conservative rural district, yet he supported Eric Cantor last June.
The Founding States are the ones who established the federal Senate and gave the power to vote for federal Senators uniquely to state lawmakers so that the states could protect themselves in Congress.
"The States should be left to do whatever acts they can do as well as the General Government." --Thomas Jefferson to John Harvie, 1790.
Having most of the country’s tax dollars going to one legislative body in the USA just makes it easier for the crook politicians to steal those tax dollars imo. And what’s worse is that DC has no constitutional justification for most of those tax dollars.
Under the Constitution, probably most of the country’s tax dollars would remain in the individual states which arguably makes it harder for crook politicians to steal.
And if the voters in a given state just sit on their hands while their state politicians bury their state in debt, then we can let the state sink and remove a star from the flag.
Is he an evil or an honorable person?
In other words, did he sell his vote, or do you think he duly considered it and came down to an honest — even though wrong — conclusion?
Keep in mind that state legislators have to be reelected every few years too and they often need party money to do it.
Keep in mind that the 17th Amendment had widespread support when it was passed and that it was ratified by nearly every state. It was passed to give more control to the PEOPLE of the states and not to party bosses.
There was no "pork" to speak of in the 19th century. Military installations were where they actually needed to be, railroads were all private, etc. Today, the legislators often rely on the pork that Congress gives their state and they will do NOTHING to upset this arrangement and that means sending people to DC who will preserve the status quo.
Though it was for the House and not the Senate, Dave Brat's defeat of Eric Cantor last year is among the best known victories of the people over the Party. The Virginia GOP and General Assembly fully expected Eric Cantor to be Speaker of the House within a few years, they would NEVER have done anything to jeopardize that.
I am fully aware that our current system is far from ideal, but I think turning the appointment of senators over to the state legislatures will actually make things worse.
I continue to follow the Founders in almost everything. Their system did not incorporate political parties when choosing a president. It is refreshingly based on the theory of a republic.
The lowest level of representative that we have, the closest to the people, is the state representative. The idea behind would be for you to know the upstanding citizens in your vicinity, to be able to check them out, and to send forward for your state’s governance the very best of your local citizens.
I still think that ideal is a wonderful concept. It is the only one I can think of that can remove politics from the selection of a leader so the focus can be on quality.
I don't often disagree with you, wags, but the direct election of Senators does more to dilute individual rights than having the Senators elected by state legislatures. If we are going to have the Senators directly elected by the people of the States, then there is no purpose in even having a Senate. The whole idea of the Senate was to have a body of Federal Legislators who are directly answerable to the state which they represent. The individual still has a measure of power in that they elect the legislatures and the legislatures then pick the Senator. A Senator that ignores the will of the people of the state will not likely ever get a second term. McCain and Flake are good examples of Senators who would have never been chosen for a second term by the Arizona legislature. But because they are able to form coalitions with democrats and weak kneed republicans, they are able to ignore the interests of their state and continue to give more and more power to the federal Leviathan.
When you allow open primaries and direct Senate elections, you have a recipe for the complete disregard of individual liberty.
It’s worse than that: the broad definition means making no distinction to a person who goes around banging tons of people, and is at serious risk for dumping tons of expenses down for the chronic medication needed for the diseases contracted. I can’t say SSA is as bad as someone being super promiscuous.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.