Socialism: Its evil permeates American society

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | 1/12/03 | David P. Shreiner

[Jean S]

A conservative preacher once told me he thought "a little socialism was good." I was dumbfounded. He did not realize this was tantamount to saying a little evil is good.

In the early 1900s socialism was regarded as a crazy idea invented by revolutionaries and Marxists to disrupt civilization and bring down governments. But today the majority of Americans behave as socialists

[wimpycat]

Don't forget the amendment process. The Constitution was Constitutionally amended to change the way the Senate is elected, but that's not good enough for some people.

[MissAmericanPie]

No hon, the Constitution does not say anywhere that only white men shall vote, it only refers to "the people". I am talking about something completely different. Here ya go, this is how the Constitution sets up the election of the President and the Senate.

This is how the President is suppose to be elected:

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President."

In this lawful way I see a glimer of hope that a President is not elected by popularity contest or how much he will line the pockets of the unproductive by robbing and punishing those who are productive to the point of having attained a measure of success.I am using the bold in hopes of making this easier to read.

This is how a member of the Senate is to be elected:

Section 3. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

In summation, we have not followed the constitution and we are therefore in trouble because of the need for a President to be all things to all people, instead of his first obligation being to preserve and uphold the Constitution.

I am all for trying this lawful way to see if we can dig our way out of the hole we are in. At this point, with no one being able to tell a Republican from a Democrat, even with a score card, we have little to lose in trying the Constitutional route. I am not sure why we left it in the first place.

[wimpycat]

Look up the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.

In section 3 of the Constitution, the phrase "chosen by the Legislature thereof" is superseded by section 1 of the 17th Amendment.

When the Constitution is amended (and how the Constitution is amended is spelled out in Article Five) the amendment is a valid part of the Constitution.

The Senate is Constitutionally elected, no matter what anybody else tells you.

[rdb3]

No need for me to comment. I was raised to respect ladies.

I'll leave it at that.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[dramagirl1341]

yes, but today we elect people differently, and the constitution tells us that the ammendments are indeed a valid part of the constitution...

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall
propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for
proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and
Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths
thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

and....

"Amendment XV:
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or
previous condition of servitude."

[MissAmericanPie]

Not to argue, but this still does not cover the election of Senators or the President. This covers the election of congress which is by popular vote.

[wimpycat]

You are obviously high. Dramagirl was quoting Article V of the Constitution which explains how the Constitution is amended.

She also quoted the 15th Amendment to the Constitution, which bars depriving anyone of their right to vote based on their race or color.

You obviously aren't worth listening to on any subject, if you can't recognize Article V when you see it. She didn't say a word about how congress is elected.

[Search4Truth]

Interesting point. Women as a voting block certainly have changed the political landscape in America. Not for the better to my mind.

[rdb3]

Agreed. There is a very shrill contingent of malcontents here who can't survive without complaining about someone or something. Blame is cast easily, but they won't look in the mirror.

Birth of Tha SYNDICATE, the philosophical heir to William Lloyd Garrison.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Poohbah]

Kindly read the 17th Amendment for information on how Senators are presently elected.

[dramagirl1341]

I was trying to show you that it would be unconstitutional to stop women from voting, or any minority for that matter....and that there is a different system today for electing the Senators and President- any ammendment made to the constition is lawful and part of the constition (maybe you need to re-read article 5)- so how we elect the Senators and President today is how the constition tells us to.

When did I say anything about the election of congress? Did you even read the post?

[Ohioan]

H.L. was indulging his smart alec side. But neither you nor he are really making the point you claim. Naturally most people in lawmaking are lawyers. That does not say anything good for the turkeys who would usurp power--i.e. most of those in Washington, regardless of profession, party or intelligence level--nor does it disparage in the slightest those who still honor their oaths of office.

Because all Medical Doctors are Physicians, does not mean that all practitioners of the ancient art of physicians are discredited, per se, because so many Doctors today seem more interested in the financial rewards than in their oaths; nor, even worse, because so many Doctors today are so afraid of the bad apples in the legal profession--of which I acknowledge there are some outrageous examples, whom I would no more wish to embrace than a Leper--that they over-treat many patients, with very serious financial consequences, as well as human tragedy.

The lawyer bit is a digression from the real issue. While lawyers jokes have been amusing since ancient times, they are not the real issue.

William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site

[weikel]

H.L. was indulging his smart alec side.

It was never easy to tell for sure.

[MissAmericanPie]

I never said it isn't legal for women to vote, I said it is a shame they can. On a whole it has been like handing a box of matches to a baby, we have done a pretty good job of burning the house down.

A majority of women vote democrat, democrats are the wrecking ball of the nation and Constitution. It has been a mistake to have not followed the Constitution as written in regards to elections of the President and Senate. It is a disgrace that a majority of women have had their part in bringing the nation to the state it is in now.

What about this are you not able to absorb?

[Jason_b]

read later

[wimpycat]

It is a disgrace that a majority of women have had their part in bringing the nation to the state it is in now. On a whole it has been like handing a box of matches to a baby, we have done a pretty good job of burning the house down.

It's a disgrace that your husband lets you anywhere near a computer or a copy of the Constitution. Allowing you near either one is like handing a box of matches to a baby. You obviously have never read Article V or acknowledged it or any Amendments as part of the Constitution and yet here you are spouting absolute garbage as if you know something.

For someone like you to rue the right of silly, ignorant women to vote is a paradox to say the least.

[dramagirl1341]

I absorbed all of it, but it is illogical. You can't not have women vote because they don't vote like you. I'm not saying liberalism and socialism is right, but they have the right to vote that way. It's called free will.

[MissAmericanPie]

Sure we have the right to vote, but I say again, given our voting record, I wish we didn't. We would have been far better off to have stuck with the original Constitution.

[dramagirl1341]

Yes, It is a shame that a majority of women vote democratic, but that isn't a reason why women shouldn't vote. I don't believe we would have been better off the old way- when only free white males voted, that didn't fairly represent the people of the US- only part of it. Now, when anyone can vote, it represents the opinions and choices of all adults in the country.

So when a candidate is elected president or elected to the senate, ect., he/she knows that a majority of people in the country did vote for him, and that he didn't win only a majority of a majority.