Levin declares a person cannot be a ‘progressive’ and ‘support the Constitution’

Definition of democracy


1a: government by the peopleespecially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

 

Definition of democracy


1a: government by the peopleespecially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

 

Definition of democracy


1a: government by the peopleespecially : rule of the majority
b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

 

We don't need child level explanations of the US government, we are all quite well informed on this. To the extent that "Progressives" are Totalitarians they are completely unfit to represent us.

More Fake News.

U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, cl. 2

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, the Number of Electors” to which it is entitled.​

Your rather odd claim is that a constitutional amendment is required in order for the State Legislatures to name their Presidential Electors, when that is already the system that we have!

Fake news, former DOJ Chief of Staff Mark Levin knows this constitutional section by heart, you, who claims that this would require a constitutional amendment, clearly are not similarly well informed. Don't feel badly about it, few are as well versed in the Constitution as The Great One, F. Lee Levin!

 

you were speaking for all the left, I was speaking for all Trump supporters

 

, democrats would like to amend the Constitution to in a constitution to immasculate the electoral college you do know that the Constitution allows for amendments come righthat's kind of right?

He was Making a distinction between direct democracy and a Republic otherwise known as a representative democracy


[It is a] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22

 

A sense of a majority is not a majority. In the federalist papers our government is either to as a republic or a representative republic, not a representative democracy.

 

Way to cherry-pick a post. It's so much easier to obfuscate an issue or question if you take it out of context. Good job on that. Here's a little back at ya ... quoting your words without that context.

Most of your post was too snide for response. Many of your claims have already been debunked. But the part where you state that "Liberals have already destroyed the USA. It no longer exists." -- That's a clear indication that your arguments are based on anger and resentment (emotions rather than reason), and that refutation via proven facts and recorded history would be a waste of my time and yours.

One thing though, since you clearly misunderstood what you read: the terms "democracy" and "republic" may be ancient, but my reference was to how those terms were understood (or not) by our founders, and the different ways that they tried to apply them to what they wanted to create. "Of the people, by the people, and for the people" describes a democracy. Or was Lincoln wrong about that?

 

There's no constitutional right to own an AR-15 or an AK-47 or any other high caliber, high capacity rifle, but that doesn't mean the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover that contingency.

Have you read the 4th Amendment? You seem unfamiliar.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I can think of no reason why any federal, state or local government should have the right to view our personal medical records. And I can think of no "search" more unreasonable than the contents of my uterus. What happens inside a woman's body is no one's business but her own, and whoever she chooses to tell. Abortion bans are a clear violation of every female's right to privacy and autonomy.

 

Where did I say you couldn't? Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. But if civility and fairness in debate are of no consequence for you, so be it.

As for the rest, you've already seen my links, right? Do we not vote? Do we not choose our leaders and enact our laws by voting? Is that not democracy? Seems like it to me, but the right seems to equate democracy with socialism these days.

This whole democracy vs republic nonsense has been pushed by the right for years, mostly in order to justify their underhanded methods of drawing districts so that they can maintain a minority rule in state legislatures.

 

If that is the case, it is odd that you did not quote, any of these unassailable arguments...
Or were you referring to the unsupported generalizations, quoted in the OP?

It is, btw, usually a dead giveaway, that one doesn't know what they're talking about, when they say that "you can't argue against such-n-such points."

FYI, our Constitution was not meant to be a static (unchanging), set of rules, but a living document, which is why it was not overly detailed. Did Mark Levin, or any other of your dubious sources for political insight, ever explain this concept to you? The "electoral college" has been something that has evolved, from how it was originally stipulated, in the D.O.I. As a matter of fact, there was no "electoral college," in the original document (that became law in 1845), only "electors," in each state. Therefore, any way that states choose to award their electors, today (proportionally, winner-take-all, or to whatever candidate receives the majority of votes, nationwide) still falls within the original framework, as it has been modified over time.

What was that original framework? Glad you asked; note especially, #3, below:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College

<Snip>
Original plan

Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution provided the original plan by which the electors voted for president. Under the original plan, each elector cast two votes for president; electors did not vote for vice president. Whoever received a majority of votes from the electors would become president, with the person receiving the second most votes becoming vice president.

The original plan of the Electoral College was based upon several assumptions and anticipations of the Framers of the Constitution:[38]

1. Choice of the president should reflect the "sense of the people" at a particular time, not the dictates of a faction in a "pre-established body" such as Congress or the State legislatures, and independent of the influence of "foreign powers".[39]

2. The choice would be made decisively with a "full and fair expression of the public will" but also maintaining "as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder".[40]

3. Individual electors would be elected by citizens on a district-by-district basis. Voting for president would include the widest electorate allowed in each state.[41]

4. Each presidential elector would exercise independent judgment when voting, deliberating with the most complete information available in a system that over time, tended to bring about a good administration of the laws passed by Congress.[39]

5. Candidates would not pair together on the same ticket with assumed placements toward each office of president and vice president
<End>

Note that we no longer vote directly for electors, i.e., for John Smith, to represent our preference for candidate X.




P.S.-- I am still intending to get back to your reply about our country being a "Republic," and not a "Democracy," but it has taken me time, because I do not relish needing to go into such remedial explanations, to straighten out the confused ideas of people who clearly have so little grasp of what they are saying.

 

[It is a] fundamental maxim of republican government, which requires that the sense of the majority should prevail. --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #22

Oh bull manure, it means exactly what it says. What is the 'sense of the majority'? it is the WILL of the majority. So cut the crap.

More accurately, the context of that quote:

Hamilton was actually arguing that the principle of equal suffrage between states of different sizes (of populations) contradicts the principle that it is a maxim of a republican form of government that the majority should prevail. Because he was arguing in favor of that principle, the principle, as a principle, it therefore stands alone --not to mention that he states that contrary arguments are 'sophistry'. Clearly, Hamilton favors that the majority should prevail in elections.

And let's get something straight, a 'Republican form of government' Is, indeed, the same thing as a 'representative democracy'. This is embodied in the House of Representatives, the Senate, the Vice President and President. All of these parts contribute to the enactment of legislation. In every election but that of the VP and President, the party with the most votes, wins. For VP and President, whoever gets the majority of electors which equals 270 or higher, wins.

Madison argued against a direct democracy, however, he was arguing for a 'Republican form of Government, and in so doing he wasn't arguing against a representative democracy, because that is what a Republican form of government is.

Article 4 section 4 of the Us Constitution:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...

So, what is a 'republican form of government'?

A 'republican form of government' is a representative democracy.

What that means, is that the United States is a democracy of a certain type, a representative democracy.

So says the US Citizenship and Immigration Department of the United States Government

https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf

Democracy in the United States.

The United States is a representative democracy. This means that our government is elected by citizens. Here, citizens vote for their government officials. These officials represent the citizens’ ideas and concerns in government. Voting is one way to participate in our democracy. Citizens can also contact their officials when they want to support or change a law. Voting in an election and contacting our elected officials are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy.


The point is, terms like 'Constitutional Republic', 'Republican Form of Government' "Representative Democracy' are not mutually exclusive terms.


And semantics are at play here. because the term 'democracy' or 'liberal democracy' is a concept more than just 'voting'. It relates to the notion of a citizenship who have freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom of speech, as embodied in the Bill of Rights. When we say 'America is a liberal democracy', no one is referring to voting directly for laws, it's concept embodying all of these things of which a representative body elected by citizens is part. It means the power of our leaders flows from the people.

What do we think of when the term 'liberal democracy' is spoken?

We think of all the nations of the western world, all of whom are said to be 'liberal democracies' or 'western democracies' inclusive of the USA, Canada, and the European nations and others ..To wit;

Liberal Democracies of the world.

There is agreement amongst several intellectuals and organizations such as Freedom House that the states of the European Union (with the exception of Poland and Hungary), United Kingdom, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Japan, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, South Korea, Taiwan, the United States, India, Canada,[27][28][29][30][31] Uruguay, Costa Rica, Israel, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand[32] are liberal democracies, with India currently having the largest population among the democracies in the world.[33]

Liberal democracies are susceptible to democratic backsliding and this is taking place or has taken place in several countries, including, but not limited to, the United States, Poland and Hungary.[2]

Yes, 'democratic backsliding', the tendency for autocratic operators like Trump who attempt to take control, crush our democratic institutions, who try and say **** like 'America is not a democracy' because they can't win the popular vote, crap like that. This reflects the part where those who complain that democracy isn't all that great, but it's better than all the rest.
So, let's be mindful of backsliding and stamp it out whenever and wherever it occurs.


"Republican Form Of Government"


http://politicalforum.com/index.php...gerous-than-it-sounds.604251/#post-1073757776

As a progressive liberal/libertarian, I approve of the above message so Mark Levin can kiss my liberal ass.

 

Indeed. Look at how trump is in a world of hurt now after trying to cheat and overturn the election.

 

let is bwgin with a quote from the article ...

"the framers rejected democracy, they embraced republicanism, they embraced representative government they embraced constitutionalism, checks and balances, separation of powers, it’s right there in the Constitution. It’s right there in the Federalist Papers. It’s right there in Madison’s notes," he said."

i'll ignore the "rejected democracy " thing since , though the founders rejected "mob rule" they did require majority votes on any number of things and were equally concerned that the government have "the consent of the governed."

what interests me today is checks and balances. democrats believe in checks and balances, republicans talk more about a "unitary executive."

then there is the "independendent state legislature " theory. which these activist supremos are about to make constitutional. how does a legislature that can not be vetoed by the governor nor overturned by the courts be consistent with checks and balances?

 

To be more accurate, you probably should have said nothing good comes from accusing the other side of cheating purely to soothe your own ego and fund raise. Then your statement is truthful, relevant to the situations, and applicable to the morons on both sides who've done it.

 

Maybe they are not interested because no one knows, or cares, who Levin is.

As for the Constitution, I haven't seen anyone reject it. The Constitution talks about democratic elections. We elect out representatives, which is the case in vast majority of nations on this planet.

Why do you refer citizens aka "We The People" as a mob?

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States"

Republic: "A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."
Democracy: "A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives."

We are both, as as most free countries in the world.

How he got his follower to think Republic and Democracy are polar opposites is beyond me, and he even quotes Madison, when Madison himself used the word democracy.

 

personaly i place as much stock in levin as i did limbaugh, who cares what mark levin thinks?

 

There is so much wrong with the above message it only proves people are easily misdirected. We do vote by majority for our elected officials just as in the definition of a REPUBLIC. However we do not elect our president. We sway those who do elect our president but we most definitely do not elect our president. In many states the electoral voters aren’t even required by law that they have to vote the way their populace did. Also in a representative republic the few who are elected to make laws still requires a majority in their vote. Sometimes not even a simple majority but an overwhelming majority much like amending the constitution. Again this is not behavioral of a democracy. It ensures the minority can not have their rights taken by a simple democratic majority.


Secondly you still can not find one founding father that defines us as a democracy. We were never constitutionally designed as such and they all knew it.


Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.

~James Madison

If we advert to the nature of republican government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people.

~ James Madison

Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

~James Madison


"IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY AN HONORABLE GENTLEMAN, THAT A
PURE DEMOCRACY. IF IT WERE PRACTICABLE. WOULD BE THE MOST
PERFECT GOVERNMENT. EXPERIENCE HAS PROVED, THAT NO
POSITION IN POLITICS IS MORE FALSE THAN THIS. THE ANCIENT
DEMOCRACIES, IN WHICH THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES DELIBERATED,
NEVER POSSESSED ONE FEATURE OF GOOD GOVERNMENT. THEIR
VERY CHARACTER WAS TYRANNY; THEIR FIGURE DEFORMITY.

From your favorite himself ~ Alexander Hamilton

“When annual elections end, there slavery begins.”

~John Adams

“The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.”

~ George Washington

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

~ The constitution

 

[QUOTE="Joe knows, post: 1073763130, member: 103032"https://www.foxnews.com/media/levin-declares-person-cannot-progressive-support-constitution
You can’t argue the points made in this article. He stops short on a few thing I add as power grabs by this administration along with the return of policy racism in the Whitehouse. He also was right to point out the democrats attempt to kill the electoral college.[/QUOTE]

Despite the fact that I agree with Levin on much of what he says not just in article but in general - it is what he doesn't say that is the proclem - Levin is a partisan clown who knows better.

"Cant be a prog and support constitution" Can't be a Liberal these days either - case you havn't noticed.

but What is the big Elephant in the room that is being left out ? -- the Sin of Omission

any clue Joe ?

 

He thinks (and his followers repeat after him) that any mention of 'democracy' must always mean same as "direct democracy", which is actually non-existent at national level in any country. It exists only in Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus. Its an inane argument to insist that US does not have democracy.

 

No one who isn't outspoken about the danger that Trump poses to the Republic can support the Constitution.

For this reason, i don't think Levin has any right to give advice about who supports the Constitution.

 

You realize that democracy precipitated the bloody French Revolution?

 

Mindless copy/paste from a random dictionary. Dictionaries do not define words.

The etymology of the word 'democracy' is as I have already described.

 

Vague whining. It is not possible to have meaningful discourse where there is none.

No. It is simply stating the truth of the matter. It is what has already happened.

You don't speak for our founders, and nowhere in the Constitution is the word 'democracy' to be found. It makes reference to a REPUBLIC, and that's what the USA was.

It COULD describe a democracy, but it could also describe a federated republic, which is what the USA actually was.

 

You don't speak for everyone, dude.

I've seen many people reject it; mostly liberals.

Yup.

Not all of them.

So?

I don't.

... and?

Incorrect. You are denying the etymology of the words, which I have already described to you, instead opting to falsely appeal to a random dictionary as an authoritative source for the definition of words.

I don't need him to tell me anything. The etymology of the words speaks for itself.

Irrelevant. The word 'democracy' is nowhere to be found in the US Constitution.