If Democrats Win

[rlg94086]

I agree wholeheartedly! de Toqueville called it “tyranny of the majority.”

Which, as I understand it, was intentional. The founders did not intend to establish a pure democracy, but a republic.

With daily polls and near instant communications, we are approaching something more resembling a pure democracy in some respects today. The results have not been good. Pure democracy makes demagoguery more likely.

 

[Robert_Bay]

**WARNING

**This thread has wandered off topic. Please return to the topic of the original post

 

[rlg94086]

If Democrats win, we face the possiblity of “tyranny of the majority.” There, we are back on topic.

 

[Thekla]

Cliff May tells us what he thinks will happen if the Democrats win. “A key player could be Sen. Joseph Lieberman. His convictions on Iraq cost him the Democratic primary in Connecticut. But Lieberman now appears poised to win… ” (NRO)

If Democrats win, it will be a first step to saving the nation from a tyrannical yet incompetent government. I don’t know if they’ll win or not, but I know I’m voting to save the country.

 

[wabrams]

If Democrats win, it will be a first step to saving the nation from a tyrannical yet incompetent government. I don’t know if they’ll win or not, but I know I’m voting to save the country.

And what examples of tyranny do you have?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Cliff May tells us what he thinks will happen if the Democrats win. “A key player could be Sen. Joseph Lieberman. His convictions on Iraq cost him the Democratic primary in Connecticut. But Lieberman now appears poised to win… ” (NRO)

I wrote this elsewhere:

If Republicans retain control of the Congress, we can expect to see an acceleration of the rights that make the United States special and envied throughout the world. We’re already started down the road with the elimination of habeus corpus, restriction on the first and fifth amendments.

If the Democrats gain control of the House, we may see a slowing of that erosion.

If the Democrats gain control of the Congress, we could see that erosion stopped and some rights restored. Unfortunately, it would be bad for the pro-life movement. I believe that there are better pro-life choices than those Bush has put into power…ones who won’t continue the unconscionable practice of equating the rights of corporations with the rights of human persons.

That’s why I’m noping that the Democrats only take the house so they can hold the Executive branch accountable while maintaining the possibility of getting a pro-life supreme court. If only we can get some justices who believe in…well, human rights.

 

[gilliam]

That’s why I’m noping that the Democrats only take the house so they can hold the Executive branch accountable while maintaining the possibility of getting a pro-life supreme court. If only we can get some justices who believe in…well, human rights.

If a party gains just the lower house they will definitely be in a position to do a number of things:

1. Hold very public hearings on things they don’t like thereby possibly applying pressure in an indirect way to get what they want.
2. Hold up funding (funding comes from the lower house). War funding could be used as a political football.
3. Pass bills that the Senate will ignore.

I am not sure having extreme liberals (and the current Democratic Party in the House is as extremely liberal as I have seen that party get) in charge of the lower chamber is going to somehow make the upper chamber into a more pro-life institution.

Not sure what else.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

If a party gains just the lower house they will definitely be in a position to do a number of things:

1. Hold very public hearings on things they don’t like thereby possibly applying pressure in an indirect way to get what they want.

Not too different from what was done to the Clinton administration by the Republican congress. Checks…and balances.

1. Hold up funding (funding comes from the lower house). War funding could be used as a political football.

That’s why it’s called checks and balances. It requires compromise: something that has been lacking in the lower house for the past six years.

1. Pass bills that the Senate will ignore.

Sauce for the gander. The Senate, a deliberative, continuing body, passed some reasonable bills this year that were utterly ignored by the House.

I am not sure having extreme liberals (and the current Democratic Party in the House is as extremely liberal as I have seen that party get) in charge of the lower chamber is going to somehow make the upper chamber into a more pro-life institution.

Not sure what else.

Ah, but since only the advice and consent of the Senate is required for the confirmation of judicial appointments (which is the important thing, AFAIK), the composition of the House is irrelevant to the Senate. Of course, the House can promote some pretty nefarious laws, but the Senate can have those eliminated in their version and/or written out in committee. Further, Bush can veto any bills that are heinous. That’s why it’s called checks and balances.

 

[gilliam]

Not too different from what was done to the Clinton administration by the Republican congress. Checks…and balances.

Oh no. Exactly the same. That is what always seems to happen. I didn’t mean to say the Democrats would act any differently than the Republicans in the same situation.

Ah, but since only the advice and consent of the Senate is required for the confirmation of judicial appointments (which is the important thing, AFAIK), the composition of the House is irrelevant to the Senate. Of course, the House can promote some pretty nefarious laws, but the Senate can have those eliminated in their version and/or written out in committee. Further, Bush can veto any bills that are heinous. That’s why it’s called checks and balances.

Yes, that is why I don’t see the House influencing the Senate that much, and certainly not making the Senate a more or less pro-life organization.

By the way, the term “checks and balances” normally refers to the dynamics between the three branches of government, not the House and Senate. But I know what you mean, I think.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Oh no. Exactly the same. That is what always seems to happen. I didn’t mean to say the Democrats would act any differently than the Republicans in the same situation.

Yes, that is why I don’t see the House influencing the Senate that much, and certainly not making the Senate a more or less pro-life organization.

By the way, the term “checks and balances” normally refers to the dynamics between the three branches of government, not the House and Senate. But I know what you mean, I think.

Oh, definitely it refers to the three branches. There has been a great lack in that area lately because, in my opinion, party loyalty has taken precedence over loyalty to the document each Congressperson and Senator took an oath to support, protect and defend.

I also tend to think that since we do have a bicameral legislature, the Founders intended for each house to check the other. As an example (and it’s just an example not intended to draw this discussion off-topic), the Senate passed a comprehensive border security and immigration reform plan and the House checked the power of the Senate and killed it.

 

[gilliam]

I also tend to think that since we do have a bicameral legislature, the Founders intended for each house to check the other. As an example (and it’s just an example not intended to draw this discussion off-topic), the Senate passed a comprehensive border security and immigration reform plan and the House checked the power of the Senate and killed it.

What the founders wanted in the two houses, how those people are elected, what type of people were to fill those seats and what they did once in office is extremely different than what we have today. I am not saying it was a better idea, but it was, definitely, different. As someone pointed out earlier. Most of the founders really did not want anything that looked like democracy and would be very surprised at what we have today. Here is a good book on the subject.

 

[Jay74]

If Democrats win, it will be a first step to saving the nation from a tyrannical yet incompetent government. I don’t know if they’ll win or not, but I know I’m voting to save the country.

Tyrannical? Come on, Thelka. You have many arguments against Bush, and I know there are many legitimate arguments against him, but a tyrant? How many people have been murdered or threatened because they spoke out against Bush or opposed the ‘regime’? This is belittling to people who have lived under real tyranny–people who would be tortured or killed if they publicly said what you just said. Don’t cheapen the term “tyrrant” by using it with such abandon.

Here’s a voice from the left that makes the same point well (albeit about a different topic):

If critics of the Bush Administration want to be taken seriously, they have to stop comparing apples to oranges. No matter how bad some may think Bush is, he is not Vladimir Putin. It’s silly and demeaning to compare journalists who oppose the government in Russia being murdered to some White House reporter being ignored by Bush in a press conference. (Grow up. It’s a joke to suggest that Bill Clinton never ignored a reporter who wrote bad stories about him). But that’s what many Bush critics do, and in doing so they undermine their own argument and minimize serious human rights abuses that are happening in other countries.

–Kirsten Powers, Democratic Strategist
powers-point.com/2006_10_01_kirstenpowers_archive.html

If democrats win, we have zero chance of overturing Roe vs Wade.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Tyrannical? Come on, Thelka. You have many arguments against Bush, and I know there are many legitimate arguments against him, but a tyrant? How many people have been murdered or threatened because they spoke out against Bush or opposed the ‘regime’? This is belittling to people who have lived under real tyranny–people who would be tortured or killed if they publicly said what you just said. Don’t cheapen the term “tyrrant” by using it with such abandon.

Here’s a voice from the left that makes the same point well (albeit about a different topic):

If democrats win, we have zero chance of overturing Roe vs Wade.

Actually, if Democrats win the SENATE, the probability of overturning Roe v. Wade in the immediate future is greatly reduced. If they take the House, then the probability changes not.

 

[ishii]

Lets pray that they don’t. EVERYONE VOTE FOR LIFE:thumbsup:

Amen. We have a very unique and rare opportunity to do something this election: there is a real possibility that one or more Supreme Court justices will resign in the next two years while Bush is still in office. Whether a pro-life justice takes their place will depend on if the Republicans can keep the Senate which is looking very iffy right now. We now have four solid, traditional, constitutionalist justices on the bench: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. Imagine what would happen to Roe V. Wade if we got just one more pro-life justice on the bench!

Take away the Republican majority in the Senate and forget about getting a pro-life justice. All of you pro-lifers out there who are going to vote against the Republicans because of Iraq, or immigration, or civil rights issues, or you just plain don’t like Bush, Republicans, etc., know what you are doing. You are preventing a key pro-life victory in the near future. Maybe many Republicans deserve criticism for their votes on other issues, but when it comes to the pro-life issue there is no other answer but to vote Republican. Remember, one of the biggest pro-choice Republican senators, Arlen Spector, did not get in the way of Alito or Roberts, and was helpful in getting Clarence Thomas approved. All of you pro-lifers who are angry at Republicans, don’t take it out on the unborn! The unborn need our help! Do what is right!

Ishii

 

[steveandersen]

You are 100% correct as to what the Senate USED to represent. But now not that senators are popularly elected.

The Senate was meant to represent the state Legislatures, which is why the original text of the Constitution said that Senators were to be appointed by the Legislative or Executive authority of the state. …

Yes I know that

My point was that that the less than 3 million people in the 4 least populous states have the same voice in the Senate as the 95 million in the four most populous.

The Senate was made that way by design and now since they’ve frozen the number of representative and each state get at least one; the folks in Wyoming get 1 house vote per roughly 550,000 people while the people of California get one for every 660,000.
(so are Californians 4/5 of a person)

I realize that the system was set up to prevent the big states from running rough shod over the small ones. but the other result is a that you have more voice in government depending on where you live.

A look at the amount of federal money received by each state versus taxes sent to Washington is very enlightening.

Very undemocratic.

 

[steveandersen]

And what examples of tyranny do you have?

Suspension of Habeas Corpus
Unwarranted wire taps
Torture

Sounds a lot like George III or the Stuarts

 

[steveandersen]

I believe what Steve is referring to is the fact that each state gets 2 senators, regardless of size.

Personally, I think it is a good thing to have states with equal representation. It balances out the needs of the country. It would be great if the federal government would stick to what the Constitution calls it to do and leave the rest to the states.

I often wonder about statements about the constitution being clear cut. If that were so why has there been over 200 years of wrangling?

The constitution is actually fairly vague. What exactly is a more perfect union and what are the blessings of liberty?
Almost anything can be (and has been) argued for under the “promote the general welfare” clause.
The “necessary and proper” clause is a strong argument that Congress can do any fool thing it wishes.

 

[mary_bobo]

Tyrannical? Come on, Thelka. You have many arguments against Bush, and I know there are many legitimate arguments against him, but a tyrant? How many people have been murdered or threatened because they spoke out against Bush or opposed the ‘regime’? This is belittling to people who have lived under real tyranny–people who would be tortured or killed if they publicly said what you just said. Don’t cheapen the term “tyrrant” by using it with such abandon.

Here’s a voice from the left that makes the same point well (albeit about a different topic):

If democrats win, we have zero chance of overturing Roe vs Wade.

Sadly, some posters don’t care. So much for abiding by the tenets of the Church.

 

[Jay74]

Sadly, some posters don’t care. So much for abiding by the tenets of the Church.

I remember conservatives who would compare Clinton to Stalin because he was far left, and as much as I disapproved of Clinton’s presidency, I stood up for him on that charge. As bad as Clinton’s behavior was, only someone in leave of their senses could compare it to Stalin’s mass murder of millions. The same goes for Bush.

If Democrats win, I have a feeling jihadists will be delighted–and feel even more justified at their hatred–when they watch attempts to impeach Bush.

 

[rlg94086]

Well, I never said the Constitution is clear-cut, but some of it is…the often ignored 10th Amendment for example:

Amendment X

*******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. ***

Seems pretty clear to me. Welfare programs, education, etc. should be handled by the states or local governments. This also matches up with the Church teachings on subsidiarity.

I often wonder about statements about the constitution being clear cut. If that were so why has there been over 200 years of wrangling?

The constitution is actually fairly vague. What exactly is a more perfect union and what are the blessings of liberty?
Almost anything can be (and has been) argued for under the “promote the general welfare” clause.
The “necessary and proper” clause is a strong argument that Congress can do any fool thing it wishes.