Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   
THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES

Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Author Message
JEQuidam
Newbie


Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:05 pm    Post subject: Re: THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES Reply with quote
The "challenge"

fellfire wrote:

    "Article the first" was not ratified, but it should have been.
    But not the "Article the first" as it was written,
    Rather an "Article the first" as we (TTO) think it should have been written.


The very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified. And there is a complicated story behind that, but I am not allowed to provide you with the link (it's on the website).

To answer your question, TTO supports having the amendment ratified as it was originally proposed by the House of Represenatives in 1789. In fact, it was that version of the amendment that the states originally believed they were ratifying. Only later would they have realized that the version they had contained a mathematical defect that was NOT in the version originally passed by the House.

Now, gentlemen, would you care to answer my simple question? It's difficult for me to debate the point if you don't declare your position.
Back to top
JEQuidam
Newbie


Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
For more information on that subject, see this article at TownHall.com:
http://enlargethehouse.blogtow.....fault.aspx

Links to supporting documents are provided within that article.
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:28 pm    Post subject: Re: THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES Reply with quote
JEQuidam wrote:
The "challenge"

fellfire wrote:

    "Article the first" was not ratified, but it should have been.
    But not the "Article the first" as it was written,
    Rather an "Article the first" as we (TTO) think it should have been written.


The very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified. And there is a complicated story behind that, but I am not allowed to provide you with the link (it's on the website).

To answer your question, TTO supports having the amendment ratified as it was originally proposed by the House of Represenatives in 1789. In fact, it was that version of the amendment that the states originally believed they were ratifying. Only later would they have realized that the version they had contained a mathematical defect that was NOT in the version originally passed by the House.

Now, gentlemen, would you care to answer my simple question? It's difficult for me to debate the point if you don't declare your position.


You or TTO is still being illogical, in your post you state:

Quote:
The very first amendment proposed in our Bill of Rights was never ratified.


But then you go on to state:

Quote:
it was that version of the amendment that the states originally believed they were ratifying.


By that logic, the states "thought they were ratifying" something and they decided not to ratify it. Thus, the states, in 1789, had before them a proposed "Article of the first" and they decide, per the rules they setup for the ratification process at that time, to NOT RATIFY this "Article of the first" that they had before them.

Now, my opinion as to TTO's proposal:

- increasing the House of Representatives to 6300 representatives and continually increasing it as population increases is profoundly ludicrous.

- that they would include in their "FAQ" statements like:
"Q14:Who would advocate and support the creation of such an amendment?
A14: Only that small portion of the citizenry who could be described as patriots; that is, those who understand the principles of freedom and liberty upon which this great nation was founded ..."


and

"Q15: Who would oppose the creation of such an amendment?
A15: Without exception, every influential political and economic special interest operating in this nation will strenuously oppose enlarging the House to the extent necessary to return political power to the people. The investment in the status quo is extensive and deep. ..."


implies to me that they are sophmoric at best and, at worst, simply posting a joke. This is a pathetic attempt to frame their argument as patriotic.

- I have no issue with their desire to support an ammendment to the Constitution. It was the height of wisdom that our founding fathers enshrined in our Constitution a means for which it would be forever relevant to it's citizens. However, I would oppose TTO ammendement as spelled out here.
Back to top
JEQuidam
Newbie


Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:43 pm    Post subject: Re: THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES Reply with quote
fellfire wrote:
By that logic, the states "thought they were ratifying" something and they decided not to ratify it. Thus, the states, in 1789, had before them a proposed "Article of the first" and they decide, per the rules they setup for the ratification process at that time, to NOT RATIFY this "Article of the first" that they had before them.


Fellfire: all but one state ratified the amendment, so it fell one state short of the number needed to ratify it as an amendment to the Constitution.

Based on the rest of your reply, I understand you are opposed to enlarging the federal House at all, and that you would like to keep it at the current size of 435. Please let me know if I misunderstood you.
Back to top
JEQuidam
Newbie


Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:54 pm    Post subject: For additional information... Reply with quote
For additional information

The twelve Bills of Rights:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/BoR_text.htm

Image of the Bills of Rights:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/BoR_image.htm
(There's also a link on that page to the Bill of Rights on the National Archives website.)

The TTO report about "Article the first":
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/QHA-04.htm
There's a link to the report PDF on that page.
(It's a big PDF and takes a few hours to read.)

Here's a list of articles about enlarging the federal House which were NOT written by TTO:
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/Why_435.htm
(Scroll to bottom of page.)
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:23 pm    Post subject: Re: THE 545 PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR AMERICAS WOES Reply with quote
JEQuidam wrote:
fellfire wrote:
By that logic, the states "thought they were ratifying" something and they decided not to ratify it. Thus, the states, in 1789, had before them a proposed "Article of the first" and they decide, per the rules they setup for the ratification process at that time, to NOT RATIFY this "Article of the first" that they had before them.


Fellfire: all but one state ratified the amendment, so it fell one state short of the number needed to ratify it as an amendment to the Constitution.


Well then I guess the supporters of the "Article of the first" didn't do enough or the proper lobbying. It is irrelevant if one or twelve states did not ratify this article, the Constitutional Congress agreed that unanimous ratification was necessary. How many other Articles failed to be ratified by one state ... or how many failed to be ratified by a minority? Do you get my point: you don't get to come back 200+ years later and complain that "well, it only failed by one state". The fact that TTO IS using that lame argument in their discussion is another good reason to dismiss their argument.

JEQuidam wrote:
Based on the rest of your reply, I understand you are opposed to enlarging the federal House at all, and that you would like to keep it at the current size of 435. Please let me know if I misunderstood you.


You are, again, making a wrong assumption. I stated in my last reply:

fellfire wrote:
- I have no issue with their desire to support an ammendment to the Constitution. It was the height of wisdom that our founding fathers enshrined in our Constitution a means for which it would be forever relevant to it's citizens. However, I would oppose TTO ammendement as spelled out here.


NOTE: I said "as spelled out here". That, in no way, indicates that I oppose changing the number of representatives. I have to respectfully give you the same admonishment I give Corny, routinely, please read what I write, not what you wanted me to write. I do appreciate your asking for clarification, I am simply amazed at how you could draw the conclusion you did based on the responses I posted.
Back to top
JEQuidam
Newbie


Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thirty-Thousand.org argues that we the people would be better off if we enlarged the House. Several compelling arguments are outlined on the TTO home page. It would be far more constructive to debate that larger question on its merits rather than delving into incidental issues.

Fellfire: you are the one who introduced "Article the first" into this thread. While "Article the first" is a very important and little understood historical artifact, it is not the basis for enlarging the federal House. Instead, it provides an interesting historical context. If you want to learn about it, please read the report that I cited above.

Fellfire, you live in Washington DC and you have been very hostile to opening the discussion about the size of the House. Futhermore, you have been unable to answer the simple question about whether or not you support enlarging the House. That's a "yes" or "no" or "I don't know" question. I believe that either you are a politician or aspire to be like one.

If you support enlarging the House, then simply say so. If you are opposed to enlarging the House, then say so as well. Then we will finally know where you stand. Otherwise, you are simply attempting to distract people from the larger question and thereby forestall intelligent debate.
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1542

PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I hope this will be as humorous as I think it will be.

I oppose enlarging the House.
Back to top
JEQuidam
Newbie


Joined: 01 Apr 2008
Posts: 17
Location: Dunwoody, Georgia

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Toxic wrote:
I oppose enlarging the House.


Ha! So is fellfire. But at least you will step up and say so.

I may try to start a new thread on this topic tomorrow, if only to see if this dicussion group can support a constructive discussion on the pros and cons of enlarging the House.
Back to top
Toxic
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Posts: 1542

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I may try to start a new thread on this topic tomorrow, if only to see if this dicussion group can support a constructive discussion on the pros and cons of enlarging the House.


The ability of the discussion to be constructive or destructive will rely solely on you. So far, you've done nothing but provide laughability and some straw men.

Quote:
Ha! So is fellfire. But at least you will step up and say so.


He is?
Back to top
fellfire
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Posts: 2021
Location: Washington DC

PostPosted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JEQuidam wrote:
Toxic wrote:
I oppose enlarging the House.


Ha! So is fellfire. But at least you will step up and say so.


Once again you have made a gross assumption. Please follow my admonitions: read what I write, not what you want me to write. No where have I stated in this thread that I oppose enlarging the House of Representatives. In fact, I am agreeable to the idea of enlarging the House of Representatives. What I have repeatedly stated is that I do not agree with TTO proposal. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Back to top
Paleocon
Guest





PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 2:59 am    Post subject: More or Bigger Government is NEVER the answer Reply with quote
Somehow, the idea that increasing the size of government in Washington, DC will help people in Iowa or Kentucky strikes Mr. Quidam as the only logical step in saving the Republic.

He has attempted to kame this argument on multiple forums and continues to fail to read and respond to what people write. It seems to be a habit.

This is one of the more silly ideas I have encountered lately. What America needs is LESS government and NOT 6,000 new Congressmen.
Back to top
Timetheos
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 432
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 3:25 am    Post subject: Re: More or Bigger Government is NEVER the answer Reply with quote
Paleocon wrote:
Somehow, the idea that increasing the size of government in Washington, DC will help people in Iowa or Kentucky strikes Mr. Quidam as the only logical step in saving the Republic.

He has attempted to kame this argument on multiple forums and continues to fail to read and respond to what people write. It seems to be a habit.

This is one of the more silly ideas I have encountered lately. What America needs is LESS government and NOT 6,000 new Congressmen.


Less or More is largely irrellavent. Small governments can rule their people with an iron fist, and large governments can get things done that no other entitiy can/will do.

The desire is effective government. In effect, do we get what we pay for?
Back to top
Turk
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 3337

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2008 10:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kind of funny how congress can stop the president at anytime and render judicial activism dead, but they allow it all to continue
Back to top
Timetheos
Known Associate
Known Associate


Joined: 10 Apr 2008
Posts: 432
Location: Seattle

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Turk wrote:
kind of funny how congress can stop the president at anytime and render judicial activism dead, but they allow it all to continue


Because a supermajority is needed to do those things.
Back to top


Post new topic   Reply to topic   Quick Reply    LVC Home // Liberals Versus Conservatives All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

 

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics
Politics blogs Politics blogs Article Directory Political Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory Top Blog Sites