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

Wrong, there have been democratic laws passed here in the states. All of which should be overturned because they are not a Republican form of governing. Laws such as weed legalization that was a pure democratic vote. Laws like section 8 in California was a purely democratic vote. All laws made by democratic vote are not of constitutional design. Yet they are here in the U.S.

 

I only speak for myself.

 

Voting is not inherently democracy.

 

as much as I was....

 

You realize the electorates do not have to vote for president in alignment with the voting in their state, right?

Many states require that through State constitutions, but it is not required at a federal level.

 

Like I said, a waste of time.

 

I can only lead the horse to water. I cannot make the horse drink the water.

 

As obviously shown

 

Dictators hod elections, too.

 

If you are defining democracy as a prime minister form of government or direct democracy, then no. But Democracies have different variations that can include a Constitutional Monarchy as its head of state. But we are definitely a representative form of democracy. Otherwise, your choices include socialism, communism, monarchy, oligarchy, and autocracy. All Mark Levine is doing is a play on words for the stupid and ignorant. That is all.

Cabse5, I live in Texas. It is a "small state." Perhaps you have heard of it?

 

Its called a representative democracy, but it is indirect because we do not give all the power to the simple majority unlike some direct democratic countries.

It still does.

As opposed to historical progressives such as the Republican Party between 1865 to the 1920s? As for the US Constitution, we have had 27 amendments so far, and so far 27 changes. Does that mean that the changes do not fit within the US Constitution? Second, there are conservatives who want to make this a theocracy, an authoritarian form of government with Trump and only Trump as the legitimate leader. And they are not RINOs, are they? But then again, your "education" by RW media is not going to help you in this debate. Even in a debate, the "Conservative Constitution" the conservatives proposed even eliminating the Electoral College in favor of states nominating presidential nominees based on the state. .

No, he is not. All he is doing is a play on words, which is what he does nowadays.

They too are relevant because he has been wrong before and used them as a pattern for his arguments.

I am one who wants to keep the Electoral College. Second, I understand why they want to eliminate the Electoral College, but disagree with them. However, the elimination may solve some issues, but not others for me, the only change I want is whatever the state decides as a populace voting for who is president, then that state must vote for that candidate even if the state is controlled by the opposite political party. Right now, it is the honor system that keeps it in check.

Nope, he is not correct.

This really has nothing to do with the argument. I know what the Constitution says, the better question is do you? What are the first three words of the US Constitution? What is the importance of Article 6 with no religious test clause? How about the significance of the necessary and proper clause? The interstate commerce clause? That it does not mention in Article 3 the number of justices on the Supreme Court which leads to the argument that Congress can change the number of justices and has done so in our history.

the point is it takes more than just a "plain reading" of the US Constitution. It takes understanding and perspective, among other things.

 

LOL. And yet, under the necessary and proper clause, we have the Electoral Count Act of 1887 which sets the number of electors for each state to the number of representatives and senators of each state.

Here is the entirety of Article 2, Section 1, "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." Don't need a Constitutional amendment to direct the states that the electors shall vote for the candidate who won their state. but then again, conservatives want to repeal the 12th amendment and have states make the choice for who is President. So much for the "plain text" argument LOL

 

So you want an oligarchy or autocracy then?

 

Yeah, a choice of me, me, or me. That is really Democratic lol

 

sounds like exactly what the Democratic Party is striving for.

 

If you think that's hard, try dealing with the horse's ass.

(Kidding! You teed it up ... I couldn't resist.)

 

No, I want the representatives to decide because the minorities elected them as well. This proves the lack of understanding between a republic and a democracy.

 

Fake News. That was set in the constitution as originally ratified:

Article II, Clause 2:

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.​

Congress cannot amend the constitution through just an Act of Congress. Amending the Constitution requires the agreement of 75% of the State Legislatures.

Fake news.

1. Textualists understand that amendments ARE part of the constitution. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that Amendments are somehow second class constitutional language.
2. States DO choose the electors who elect the president. You claim to fear that this will change, but overlook the following.
3. It only takes 13 state legislatures to BLOCK any changes to the constitution.
4. Name the State Legislatures and members of Congress who you claim are clamoring for the States to directly choose the president rather than selecting through electors. That would take the agreement of 38 State Legislatures. Name just 4 State Legislatures that have asked for this, that would only be 1/10th of the number needed. Hell, to demonstrate your completely vacuous claim, just name two state legislatures that are on record in favor of this. OK, what the hell, JUST NAME ONE!

 

It is the very definition of democracy. There is no such thing as democracy without voting.

 

Constitution does not forbid popular votes at local level on issues like weed.

It is the cornerstone of democracy, and the cornerstone of US Constitutional political system. The fact that we (and all other free countries) vote for representatives does not mean we do not have democracy. People here are following their media figures in playing silly word games, In November people will vote directly for their representatives.

 

you should realize that the bloody french revolution was precipitated by the aristocracy.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." jfk

 

We are a representative form of republic or a democratic republic...But never a democracy. For one, the US is way too big to be a functioning democracy.

 

The bloodiness of the French Revolution was a direct result of democracy.

 

I know of no constitutional conservative who wants or even likes a theocracy.

Huh??!! The electoral college was designed purposefully by the framers specifically for states to select the president.

 

The USA was not a representative democracy either.

There is no such thing as "indirect democracy" or "direct democracy". You are describing a representative democracy vs a democracy.

The USA no longer exists. Democrats/RINOs no longer recognize the US Constitution.

The US Constitution allows for amendments, and those amendments can become a part of it upon ratification.

Liberals have already destroyed the USA and have replaced it with an oligarchy (doubling as a theocracy in which "Climate" and "The Science" are the gods). You keep accusing conservatives of "plotting to do" things that liberals have already done.

Once again, see above. Biden has already been installed for this very purpose. Remember when he tried to order all businesses with 100+ employees to force invasive medical procedures upon all their employees and to fire them if they refuse to comply? Seems quite authoritarian of Biden, eh?? Trump never did anything even remotely close to that.

And we already had 4 years of Trump and never once did he try to be a dictator as Biden has done. Never once did Trump get us into any foreign wars as Biden has done. Gas prices were very cheap under THE ENTIRETY OF Trump's term, and have been climbing upward throughout most of Biden's term (back up to record highs again in my neck of the woods). Inflation was very low under Trump and has been ever climbing during Biden's term.

WAKE UP. WAKE UP. WAKE UP.

McConnell, Graham, Thune, Murkowski, Cheney, and etc are all RINOs. They are not America First. They are not MAGA. They are all the enemies of Main Street (you and I).

I do not need any media (RW or otherwise) to do my thinking for me. I have a mind all of my own... not all of us are programmed NPCs...

He is correct.

Yes, I do.

"We the people..."

No religious test for admission into government... freedom of religion.

Congress can make constitutional laws that are necessary and proper to carry out the constitutional duties enumerated within the Constitution.

Interstate commerce can be regulated (made regular).

Yes, the number of justices can be changed. There is no specification on what that number has to be.

No, it doesn't. The only way it can be read and understood is plainly, via the written text, via word meanings as they were used at the time of writing.

It takes an ability to read and comprehend English, and that's it.