Why should we Americans uphold our Constitution?

[ulTRAX]

Excerpt of Chapter 1, from "How Democratic Is the American Constitution" By Robert A. Dahl, Sterling Professor Ermeritus of Political Science, Yale.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction: Fundamental Questions

MY AIM IN THIS BRIEF BOOK IS NOT TO PROPOSE changes in the American Constitution but to suggest changes in the way we think about our constitution. In that spirit, I'll begin by posing a simple question: Why should we Americans uphold our Constitution?

Well, an American citizen might reply, it has been our constitution ever since it was written in 1787 by a group of exceptionally wise men and was then ratified by conventions in all the states.1 But this answer only leads to a further question.

To understand what lies behind that next question, I want to recall how the Constitutional Convention that met in Philadelphia during the summer of 1787 was made up. Although we tend to assume that all thirteen states sent delegates, in fact Rhode Island refused to attend, and the delegates from New Hampshire didn't arrive until some weeks after the Convention opened. As a result, several crucial votes in June and July were taken with only eleven state delegations in attendance. Moreover, the votes were counted by states, and although most of the time most state delegations agreed on a single position, on occasion they were too divided internally to cast a vote.

My question, then, is this: Why should we feel bound today by a document produced more than two centuries ago by a group of fifty-five mortal men, actually signed by only thirty-nine, a fair number of whom were slaveholders, and adopted in only thirteen states by the votes of fewer than two thousand men, all of whom are long since dead and mainly forgotten?2

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[gWbush is Mabus]

1. b/c if you can easily change it, then

moron liar cheating thief murderers like Bush
will turn the country into a totalitarian state much quicker.

[ulTRAX]

2. you obviously don't understand election 2000

Smirky McChimpster wrote: "b/c if you can easily change it, then moron liar cheating thief murderers like Bush will turn the country into a totalitarian state much quicker."

If I'm not mistaken... Bush is NOT president because of anything that happened in Florida or the USSC. He's president because we have an anti-democratic Constitution that allowed 1 vote in Bush's Florida weigh the same as 1000 votes in Gore's national lead. You can have 100% vote participation... 100% vote count accuracy... public financing of elections... ANY reform you can dream of. But as long as we have the EC... the losing candidate can STILL be imposed on the nation. Deal with it.

[sweetheart]

3. Rewiring a broken constitution

I recommend, in the re-draft, a unicameral congressional body which
must "declare" war, in order for troops to fight.

It must have a section on electronic media... suggest a similar bit
from the more modern british constitution: www.ofcom.org.uk (independent communications regulator)

Same same for what is called today "the federal reserve act". This
must be incorporated in to the constitution with clarification on
corporations having limited rights and currency being issued in
the public interests.

[ulTRAX]

4. not sure what you mean

sweetheart wrote: "I recommend, in the re-draft, a unicameral congressional body which must "declare" war, in order for troops to fight."

Are you suggesting a unicameral Congress... or that Congress no longer abrogates its war making authority to the President?

If it's the former... on what basis should representatives be chosen? States/districts (geographical interests)? Parties (ideological representation)? Gender balancing? Racial balancing? Class interests? Other?

[ulTRAX]

5. BTW... the REAL question was....

Why should we Americans uphold our Constitution?

[sweetheart]

7. What constitution?

Several of the bill of rights are REALLY gone, given the patriot
act and the secret court system in the department of justice that
s beyond the constitution.

Since they've torn the bloody thing up, i've no impulse to defend
the scraps of paper on the floor.

I want a new constitution that enshrines our civil rights.

I meant a unicameral body, eliminating the senate that is structured
to violate democratic princpals from the outset.

Or, if you want to keep the senate, nominate members from the "house" to the senate for 10 year terms.

Our constitution does not exist. It has been eaten and shat out in
a million pieces by the last 30 years of republican party gnawing.

Given there's no nation to defend except a mafia gang, i'd be happy
to get a new constitution and fire every SINGLE PERSON IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT TODAY.

The current corproate government has sooooooooooooooo violated the
constitution, and its basis, there's little point on pretending that
there is still a consensus.

Though i'm voting democratic this election, my real vote is for a
revolution and an overthrow of this crap. If the democratic party
can't do it... .. what's the point of supporting a criminal gang
any longer. The game is up. I'm for making a civil war and taking
their destruction of the constitution to the battlefield.

[ulTRAX]

14. please elaborate

sweetheart wrote: "I meant a unicameral body, eliminating the senate that is structured to violate democratic principals from the outset."

OK... but you didn't answer my follow-up question: "... on what basis should representatives be chosen? States/districts (geographical interests)? Parties (ideological representation)? Gender balancing? Racial balancing? Class interests? Other?"

Representation is tricky. What aspect of a multi-faceted citizen deserves representation? I'd leave the House alone. This would provide geographical representation. But I'd also like to see multi-party districts... maybe even across state lines... and Gerrymandering outlawed. I'd like the Senate to become a national parliament based upon party elections. If the Libertarians or Greens each get 5-10% of the NATIONAL vote... they'd each get 5-10% of the seats. I see no other way to give third and fourth parties a chance. This would also FINALLY provide some representation to most every citizen... at least in one chamber.

[sweetheart]

23. The upper house

My model is the house of lords. What? You might say. Let me
explain. No matter what you think of the way the house of lords is
composed, it rejected the invasive parts of the british equivalent
of the patriot act. It was able to do this because it is not an
elected body, and has a long term view that goes beyond partisan
politics towards making sure british law is coherent, and its
government sustainable and stable. This has worked for some
time, like many centuries.

To fix the senate, we eliminate the partisanness. As well, the house
of lords (HOL) has specialists in it, people who are not lawyers but
biologists, poets, religious people and such. This body of knowledge
interacts with the politically motivated house of commons to
achieve a consensus between short term political objectives and
the long term.

For composition of this body:

70% of its representatives nominated by a public nominations
committee, and approved by the house. These have 20 year terms

10% should be by random lottery; this where any voting US citizen
is randomized on a big list and the top 10 names who want the job
get it. These have 10 year terms

20% are elected, not from each state, but 20 people nominated and
running a nationwide effort to be in the top 20 in a typical election.
These have 10 year terms

No money or lobbiests go near the senate or they are charged with
treason and beheaded. Campaign finance reform is root.

All these are staggered that the house has less than 10% of its
membership changing at any given year. This body would be very
a-political, as 80% of its members would not be elected politicians
but rather concerned citizens... real people. The 20% elected
would add a slight political element to the chamber, but not
enough to open it to swing-political pressures, like that which
rubber stamped the patriot act, approved the war and other such
failures of the chamber.

This is the big change, however: All members of the committees,
and subcommittees and all advisors - would be elected by the
senate, in public voting. The cozy sneaky beltway bandits who
float in the committees to screw over the people... those people
would be exposed to intense scrutiny by this.

The house is your demographically elected chamber. Were you to
focus on eliminating gerrymandering (for a standard mathematical
grid system) for districting, and restore the rights of all
americans to vote (no disenfranchisement), and make the news media
on an equal time basis for political issues, or lose their
license to broadcast. Then the house becomes a truly
representative chamber. Until you attack gerrymandering, the
house will stay antidemorcratic.

[ulTRAX]

28. please focus

I'm confused and getting to the point that I don't know if you can focus or that you're just not serious. Looking back at your other suggestions from other threads.... you're all over the board.

You're in favor of "....a unicameral body, eliminating the senate that is structured to violate democratic principals from the outset."

So you claim you want a SINGLE (unicameral) system yet are still proposing a bicameral model. You claim you want that second house based on democratic principles yet use as your model the British House of Lords which historically was designed to allow the British aristocracy a potential veto over the House of Commons.

According to Dahl... a second chamber is almost always used to create a more ANTI-democratic government. Your suggestion follows that rule. My suggestion for the Senate being reformed into a national parliament based on party elections does the opposite.

[sweetheart]

35. flexibility of approach is not unfocused

Look, i stand for a new constitution with very democratic systems,
uber democratic, and enshrining this universal declaration of human
rights as the new "bill of rights":

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

My interest would be to make such a unicameral body and call it the
people's house as part of the United Nations, with an elected voice
for every 1,000,000 people on the earth, or 6,000 in the body. This
could add a vital element of democracy in a uber-antidemocratic UN.

Similarly, you could reform the house of reps to be a unicameral
body. (provided that gerrymandering was outlawed, for a grid system
that democratic choice is not overrridden)

The upper house/ House of lords/senate is failing democracy. We
agree on this. It is failing as it duplicates an existing chamber
(house) except badly. There IS a value in a bicameral architecture
in that, if is done properly, the second chamber moderates the first
like a shock-absorber keeping emotive-situtational politics from
overwhelming the legislative process.

An example is how the antiterror (patriot) act was passed on both
sides of the atlantic. In the US where the congress is s"elected"
, the political pressure pushed the whole act through, when we know
it was quite ill advised. In britain, the act was stopped by the
upper house, who don't have to worry about "electability" and they
protected the rights of british citizens better than the american
senate did.

Granted, the supreme court should strike the law down, but the balance of powers in the newtonian constitution failed the people,
bottom line. I agree with Plato that democracy is a flawed
institution when it gets involved with populist pressures... as
these pressures are seldomly wise, and rather cause the government
to do stupid things. The upper house is there as an improvement
on the athenian model.

Your suggestion about the senate does nothing democratic, and rather
makes it in to a second house.

If you truly made it in to a parliament and got rid of the executive
for a prime ministers office, then thats quite different, and still
we have a time-focus problem.

House members focus on 2 year elections. They can't take any decision
which would fail to get them reelected (if the place was not gerry
mandered already to be less democratic than north korea)
The pres is focused on 4 years and the senate 6. The long term
view of life appointment is only the supreme court. The problem
is that the legislative and executive branches are too short term
focused and partisan, by the very nature of constant elections
that they fail to support the strategic development of the nation.
Nothing strategic happens in 2, 4, or 6 years and the inability
of american govrnment to be strategic leads them to subvert the
constitution so they can keep a longer control. This evolves by
supra-constitutional means like the PNAC, and 3 billion in thinktanks.

You've gotta get some long-term focused people in your legislature/
executive or the improvements won't hold.

[ulTRAX]

48. flexibility vs consistency

Sweetheart wrote: "flexibility of approach is not unfocused"

Flexibility may or may not be. But if one is so "flexible" that one's arguments are rife with self-contradictions... then it's difficult to evaluate those ideas. This is why I start with core principles and try to follow them to their logical applications. This approach minimizes the possibility of an internally inconsistent argument.

[Yupster]

39. The problem is

that the Union was created by a union of the states.

The Constitution was written to preserve the rights of the states that formed the union.

Over time, many powers have been taken away from the states and given to the federal government.

Therefore the Constitutional system seems weird because it's protecting rights of states, when states are are no longer important enough to warrant protection.

My solution is to just do away with states and have a federal government.

[mulethree]

21. my rules

when you fix it ...

If ignorance of the law is no excuse, then the law must not require 300 books and stuff like the patriot act at what like 2000 pages with a thousand little changes to existing laws - spagetti code we call it in computer programming. Please to require it to fit it into one book (?200 pages?) so someone actually has a chance of not being ignorant of the law. Significant legal rulings which might today be "legal precidents" would be amended into this law book. New laws would all pass by the supreme court strictly to ensure they are constitutional before they are enforced. Should drastically reduce the number of lawyers.

Getting older sucks, I remember when I could pick up a book and get glued to it because it was all new. Nowadays I pick up a book and 80 or 90% of it is old news and you get mezmerized trying to identify that 20% thats new or changed and actually of interest. Same thing with fiction or movies - remakes, re-used plots, predictable plots.

[sweetheart]

24. eliminating spagetti code

What is making the law so long winded is the way american law is
read in the courts. Too much of it is statute, and not enough
precedent. I am for a much much much (1% of today) smaller statute
book, as you say. Rather the courts would be empowered to levy
justice on a per-case basis, given a constitution of human rights
and crimes against them. (as human rights pretty much outline all of
human life, including property rights) this would work a charm.

There would be a separate court system, in my constitution, for
corporate non-persons. THis court system would not be taxpayers
supported, and be entirely funded by the litigants. This would
inspire corporations to get their bullshit out of the courts, as it
would be very expensive indeed !! Only indiviuals would be allowed
to hold copyrigths to patents. They would last for that person's
lifetime.

I agree with you: "90% of it is old news and you get mezmerized
trying to identify that 20% thats new or changed and actually of
interest.". Sadly corporate culture has so dummed down the
public common in America, that we've reduced the arts to a marketing
forumla, and like you say, the formula is pretty easy to reverse
engineer. If you check out "the heros journey" on search engeines,
you'll find the metadata structure for most of the films made in
hollywood. No wonder they do nothing new, we're in corporeate
arts-lockdown.

[kiahzero]

6. Have you taken me up on my suggestion?

Read Alexis de'Tocqueville's "Democracy in America"... specifically, the discussion of the Tyranny of the Majority.

That's why the Constitution isn't easy to modify. If all it takes is a majority or super-majority of the population to change the Constitution, it doesn't serve it's primary purpose - the protection of minority rights against the tyranny of the majority.

[sweetheart]

9. That begs the question

Of who modified it to remove the right of a jury trial to
mr. padilla? Who modified it to make the president able to declare
any US citizen a non-combatant and not prone to the rights of the
constitution? Given that criminal constitution modifiers are above
the law, it pretty much suggests the document is trash.

The constitution is toilet paper the bush administration uses to
wipe their asses with.

Here's another bit of the unenforced document of bullshit:

Article1, section 9, clause 7:
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence
of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account
of the Reciepts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be
published from time to time."

This is not done. How much is being spent by the many secret
programmes of weapons and other war crap going on in this government
that is BEYOND the constitution altogether.

The problem with selling that crap to some folks, is they've read
the constitution, and can still remember what it used to say.

Alexis De tocqueville's book is good stuff. Perhaps some more recent
learning on constitutional law, including the german, british,
canadian and french constitutions might be wise, as they are much
more current and in keeping with best practices for maintaining
some semblance of a democratic republic.

[blackwalnut]

20. My 2cents here

Of who modified it to remove the right of a jury trial to
mr. padilla? Who modified it to make the president able to declare
any US citizen a non-combatant and not prone to the rights of the
constitution?

I think sweetheart has described the heart of the problem. Whatever the defects of the Constitution (though some major ones have been corrected, such as the recognition of slavery as a legitimate enterprise in the original document before an amendment corrected this!), it is, by and large, a beautiful enumeration of our U. S. rights.

The problem lies not in the "highest law of the land," but in the average person's desire to defend it in daily life. Likewise, there is very little real solidarity in the public. If there was, there would be a lot more protest! More protest would lead to either a) following the constitution with more fidelity or b) changing said constitution (via the convention process) to conform to what the majority think and feel is more just and fair.

Most of the public seems oblivious to the constitution and how much it is being violated, not just lately, but throughout much of our entire history.

I was once at an informal, small gathering in Columbus, GA (albeit technically a public meeting, there were only about 30 people in attendance.) There was a local, prominent lawyer there. Someone had the intelligence to ask this person: why was it that in the local courts, lawyers rarely (if ever) brought up the constitution in defense of their clients?

He answered: Because most (99%) of local judges would not like lawyers that used such legitimate tactics in "their" courtrooms! He further explained: Though such an intrepid lawyer might win his argument in such a matter, he would also "get on the bad side" of the judge, and thus face many obstacles in the future when in front of said judge. Judges sadly love their power much more than the law!

This is the problem with our entire society. You can have a good constitution, or laws, or whatever -- but if people don't appreciate what they have (for whatever reasons), and are not willing or interested in fighting for it, it isn't going to do them (or anyone)much good! Writing a new constitution -- in such compromised circumstances -- is not going to help, even if the new one is just as good -- or better -- than the old one!

One can change the "form" of government, and one can change the demographics of it (state's rights vs. federal powers for example), and one can do all sorts of things -- but if the public isn't cohesive and intelligent and sensitive -- then "it ain't gonna matter what you do!" In the end, there is no substitute for having a population of largely good, intelligent people.

Aldous Huxley once commented that the problems of modern governments and societies stemmed from "trying to DO good without actually BEING good." Without being good, a person will read into the constitution -- any constitution -- whatever they want to, and thus distort it into something that is often the complete inversion of its real meaning.

[ulTRAX]

10. Red Herring Alert!!

kiahzero wrote: "Have you taken me up on my suggestion? Read Alexis de'Tocqueville's "Democracy in America"... specifically, the discussion of the Tyranny of the Majority."

No... I forgot about that thread and when I went back today it was already locked. Which is why I started the topic up again. As for your red herring... what you're ignoring is that our system can create a tyranny on the MINORITY. Rationalize all you want about election 2000... but that's what we have. Deal with it.

"That's why the Constitution isn't easy to modify. If all it takes is a majority or super-majority of the population to change the Constitution, it doesn't serve it's primary purpose - the protection of minority rights against the tyranny of the majority."

You crack me up. That high bar which you praise is now giving a dwindling minority INCREASING power to protect a system that can result in morally illegitimate MINORITY government as we now have with Bush. There is NOTHING in the amendment formula that will prevent 4.5%... and maybe soon 2% of the US population in those 1/4 smallest states from having a theoretical veto on ALL reform desired by the rest of the nation. As for protecting legitimate minority rights I have suggested in numerous posts that the BEST way to do so is though law... NOT by granting SOME US citizens more power at the expense of others. In that way you get the best of both worlds: the protection of rights AND the protection of morally legitimate majority government. It's such a no brainer I can't believe people like you are so immune to the obvious.

You're problem is you are so locked into traditional constitutional apologetics that you continually rationalize away the defects in the Constitution. Even my attempts to state something as simple as "from the point of view of democracy, the EC and Senate are irredeemable".... you miss the point entirely and go off on a tangent that we're not a unitary government. Give me a break. Do you REALLY think I don't know that? I'm critiquing the Constitution by getting back to first principles. You confuse the compromising AWAY of principles in the Constitution as the NEW principles.

[kiahzero]

15. Tyranny of the minority?

That's odd... that sounds exactly like the rhetoric coming from the Right Wingers... "Waah... I can't discriminate against gay people anymore, because the minority is oppressing me!"

You crack me up. That high bar which you praise is now giving a dwindling minority INCREASING power to protect a system that can result in morally illegitimate MINORITY government as we now have with Bush. There is NOTHING in the amendment formula that will prevent 4.5%... and maybe soon 2% of the US population in those 1/4 smallest states from having a theoretical veto on ALL reform desired by the rest of the nation. As for protecting legitimate minority rights I have suggested in numerous posts that the BEST way to do so is though law... NOT by granting SOME US citizens more power at the expense of others. In that way you get the best of both worlds: the protection of rights AND the protection of morally legitimate majority government. It's such a no brainer I can't believe people like you are so immune to the obvious.

Once again, you've neglected the fact that the United States is a federal government, not a unitary government. That means that there are sub-governments within the overarching government. These are not "anti-democratic", as you try to cast it. The smallest states have rights, just as the largest states do.

Minority rights are not protected through law when the law can be changed on the whim of the majority. Imagine for a moment that the 70% Christian figure that we hear touted so often were 70% Christian fundamentalists a la Falwell. How protected would I be in your system, as a Pagan that most would like to burn at the stake? The answer is not very.

You're problem is you are so locked into traditional constitutional apologetics that you continually rationalize away the defects in the Constitution. Even my attempts to state something as simple as "from the point of view of democracy, the EC and Senate are irredeemable".... you miss the point entirely and go off on a tangent that we're not a unitary government. Give me a break. Do you REALLY think I don't know that? I'm critiquing the Constitution by getting back to first principles. You confuse the compromising AWAY of principles in the Constitution as the NEW principles.

That's because it's not simple - you assume that they are "irredeemable", and go from there. The Senate, as a body, is not intended to represent the people - it is intended to represent the states. Hence my cogent (non-tangential) point that the United States is not a unitary government.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

19. I think you're intentionally missing my point

I have NO idea WTF you're babbling about. You KNOW damn well that my main objection to the Constitution is that it's a vote weighing system that gives the MINORITY the power to rule. You can deal with this simple truth or play forever dumb. Why do I expect more of the latter?

It only gives the minority the power to rule in the sense that the minority can protect itself from the trepadations of the majority - hence my comparision to the Right Wingers. Often times, their complaint is that the minority is preventing the majority from ruling the way it wishes; this is because the disfavored minority is protecting its existence from the majority that wishes to exterminate it.

I SHOULD have thought my last post was clear that I do NOT care what government we have. You're a classic example of someone who probably would have defended slavery since its protection in the Constitution was a central compromise in federalism. You consider our anti-democratic government as an unalterable fact.... while I see democratic principles are a moral imperative that should NEVER be held hostage to ancient history or immoral law. This is OUR nation now. I will NOT renounce my ideals in favor of the politics of people 200 years dead. Obviously you do not share this view. OK... just come out and admit it.

No, I would not "<defend> slavery since its protection in the Constitution was a central compromise in federalism." I was simply explaining the way things are, since you have to have rather base misunderstandings about the nature of the Senate. If you want to argue against the Senate, that's fine, but you are misrepresenting its nature and purpose.

Red Herring Alert!!! Why is it you must get irrational when defending the Constitution? Oh... that's right.. because you don't believe in democracy and you're operating on the assumption that this is a secular religion. Your example is just another of your red herrings. Has ANYONE suggested the Constitution be EASY to amend? The ONLY issue is how to protect minority rights AND the majority's right to govern.

You have suggested in the past that the Constitution should be easier to amend... IIRC, a mere 60% majority in a popular vote. My example would create a serious problem under such a system... the First Amendment would be out the window, and I would be on the stake. That's hardly irrational - that's a rational actor concerned about his own safety.

Gee... really? The Senate represents the states? Well... then I retract everything I've said. NOT! The 17th amendment striped away the illusion that the Senate represents some legal entities called states. It's now abundantly clear that the Senate only represents US CITIZENS living in those states. As such... it's nothing but a vote weighing scheme and ALL such schemes can lead to minority government.

The Senate continues to represent the States - the 17th Amendment just changed the way the State selected the Senators that would represent it.

I will give you one thing that is abundantly clear - you support a unitary government. Why not advocate for that, rather than these ad hoc attempts to graft a unitary government onto a federal system... if you're going to eliminate the Senate and the Electoral College, why not take the 10th Amendment out with it, and make the United States a top down government?

Perhaps because you know that's a non-starter: Americans like their government close to home. Unitary governments have problems in other countries... Britain is moving the other way, towards a federal system. The citizens of Britain (especially the citizens of cultural minorities such as the Welsh or Scottish... not even touching upon the obvious issue of the impact of a unitary government in Britain on the Irish) are moving to a devolution of powers to local authorities.

I've asked this a million times... and NEVER get a good answer from you defenders of an anti-democratic Constitution. What's the MORAL justification TODAY for SOME US citizens, based on residence... to be forever given special powers at the expense of other citizens? Why not other groups? Racial, gender, class, political, minorities? Care to answer? Or is the best you can do is parrot 1787 politics?

They aren't given "special powers," and the Constitution is hardly anti-democratic (unless you want to argue over 'true' democracy vs. republic, which is an entirely different battle).

Every citizen of the United States has a voice in the House of Representatives to represent him/her at the National level, a voice in the Senate to represent his/her state at the National level, and a voice in electing the President to lead the nation, and represent him/her to the world.

You have a reasonably valid argument on the Electoral College, and I don't believe that I've ever defended it. I will argue, however, that it is not without its benefits.

[Zhade]

26. Very well-said. Excellent, insightful post.

NT!

[ulTRAX]

30. quick response

ulTRAX: I have NO idea WTF you're babbling about. You KNOW damn well that my main objection to the Constitution is that it's a vote weighing system that gives the MINORITY the power to rule. You can deal with this simple truth or play forever dumb. Why do I expect more of the latter?

kiahzero "It only gives the minority the power to rule in the sense that the minority can protect itself from the trepidations of the majority - hence my comparisons to the Right Wingers."

Pure nonsense. It SHOULD be clear that with both the Presidency and the Senate being anti-democratic features of the Constitution... and the House being based upon a dysfunctional electoral system... that once in power... there is NO constitutional restriction on the minority to exert powers just to protect their rights. In reality Bush was quite free to use the powers of his office to push for a radical RR agenda which has changed EVERY aspect of US government.

kiahzero: "Often times, their complaint is that the minority is preventing the majority from ruling the way it wishes; this is because the disfavored minority is protecting its existence from the majority that wishes to exterminate it."

Again you are confused. You equate the ability for the minority to OBSTRUCT with the power of the minority to GOVERN. Obviously, whether you want to admit it or not... under our system the representatives of a MINORITY of those who voted CAN end up ruling. That some citizens never vote is another matter. Their apathy is understandable given how dysfunctional and unresponsive our system is.

ulTRAX: I SHOULD have thought my last post was clear that I do NOT care what government we have. You're a classic example of someone who probably would have defended slavery since its protection in the Constitution was a central compromise in federalism. You consider our anti-democratic government as an unalterable fact.... while I see democratic principles are a moral imperative that should NEVER be held hostage to ancient history or immoral law. This is OUR nation now. I will NOT renounce my ideals in favor of the politics of people 200 years dead. Obviously you do not share this view. OK... just come out and admit it.

kiahzero: "No, I would not "<defend> slavery since its protection in the Constitution was a central compromise in federalism." I was simply explaining the way things are, since you have to have rather base misunderstandings about the nature of the Senate. If you want to argue against the Senate, that's fine, but you are misrepresenting its nature and purpose."

Thank you for ANOTHER example of your inability to comprehend. For the 20th time.... I KNOW the purpose of the Senate. For the 20th time... I REJECT that rationale because it is anti-democratic. I am NOT misrepesenting the Senate's purpose. I am critiquing it using basic democratic principles. If these simple distinctions can never sink in, there's no point continuing this discussion.

To Be Continued....

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kiahzero]

37. Assertions are not arguments.

More distortions. For the record I made NUMEROUS suggestions to get the discussion going. I NEVER claimed I favored any one suggestion I made.

I mistook one of your suggestions as advocacy. Fine.

The 17th amendment PROVES that the Senate is nothing but a vote weighing scheme. It amplifies the power of any citizen in Wyoming 68X over any citizen in California. Deal with it.

No, it does not "prove" anything. You have not made an argument, but merely an assertion.

I support the elimination of state suffrage in the federal government. I do NOT favor the elimination of states as semi-sovereign entities. You can call that whatever you want.

These positions may be logically inconsistant, depending on your rationale. If the states are semi-soveriegn entities, why should they not have representation in the federal government? If the Senate is divided up based on population, the citizens of the smallest states can be pushed around by the larger states.

It SHOULD be self-evident to anyone who invests 30 seconds of thought into the issue that states can govern with cities and towns remaining independent legal entities. There's NO need for those states to be a federation of cities and towns each deserving their own chamber in state government where a town of 5000 has an equal vote with a city of 500,000.

I'll accept that argument, so long as you attack the United Nations under the same argument.

Red herring alert: there's NO philosophical requirement that republics must be anti-democratic. And you are wrong: SOME US citizens DO enjoy a bigger vote (more power) at the expense of others... and this is a function of the Constitution. If this arrangement can lead to minority government... then it is anti-democratic. Deal with it.

Once again, you have proved nothing, merely asserted.

ROTF... our election system is designed to only give those voting for the winning candidate any representation. Some 40-49% of the population goes without representation. I certainly don't consider my Representative to be representing my Progressive views... nor do I have such representation in the Senate. So just what do I get for my taxes?

You are confusing how a representative is chosen with who that representative represents. A member of Congress represents his/her entire district, though not all of the people may agree with his/her decisions. A Senator represents his/her entire state (except for states that split the state up into two Senatorial districts), similarly. The President represents the entire country.

If you are arguing against FPTP voting, you will find no opponent with me. If you check my posting history, I am a loud advocate for Condorcet voting.

The BEST the EC can do is affirm the popular vote... in which case it's NOT needed. At worst... it can impose upon the nation a candidate REJECTED by the people. Deal with it.

Is the third assertion in leiu of argument the charm?

The Electoral College has benefits, is what I said, and it is true. As others have stated, the EC serves a practical purpose of limiting events like Florida 2000. If most states have a clear winner, but the popular vote is close, the EC limits the fights over recounts to a few areas of the country, rather than nationwide. Note that this is not advocacy for the Electoral College, but rather, simply a factual statement that it has positives as well as negatives.

[ulTRAX]

44. response 1

ulTRAX: The 17th amendment PROVES that the Senate is nothing but a vote weighing scheme. It amplifies the power of any citizen in Wyoming 68X over any citizen in California. Deal with it.

kiahzero: No, it does not "prove" anything. You have not made an argument, but merely an assertion.

The math of unequal representation demonstrates this to be a fact... not an assertion.

ulTRAX: I support the elimination of state suffrage in the federal government. I do NOT favor the elimination of states as semi-sovereign entities. You can call that whatever you want.

kiahzero: These positions may be logically inconsistent, depending on your rationale. If the states are semi-sovereign entities, why should they not have representation in the federal government?

That answer is simple. Because the argument of people who hold your view assumes that states are more than the people that live there... but it's untrue. NO state has a will of its own. The will of the citizens of any state are mediated though representatives. No matter how you cut it... the Senate and EC are vote weighting schemes which are ILLEGAL for all other levels of government. To quote the MORAL argument the USSC made against this practice in Sims v Reynolds http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=377&invol=533

"Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests. As long as ours is a representative form of government, and our legislatures are those instruments of government elected directly by and directly representative of the people, the right to elect legislators in a free and unimpaired fashion is a bedrock of our political system."

The REAL question is why should we IGNORE this moral argument on the federal level? My answer is, of course, we should not. Your seeming defense of this immorality is that this was the intent of the Framers 220 years ago and we citizens must never question that intent. We today must revolve OUR sense of the nation around the politics of dead. Do I understand the theme that underlies all your arguments to date?

Kiahzero: If the Senate is divided up based on population, the citizens of the smallest states can be pushed around by the larger states.

Why are state interests the OVERRIDING concern upon which the national government must revolve? There are PLENTY of other minorities that have legitimate reason to distrust the majority. I've asked you that question before and you evade it by pretending no group is given special powers under the Constitution even though the math of unequal representation PROVES your claim untrue. Here's that question it is again:

”I've asked this a million times... and NEVER get a good answer from you defenders of an anti-democratic Constitution. What's the MORAL justification TODAY for SOME US citizens, based on residence... to be forever given special powers at the expense of other citizens? Why not other groups? Racial, gender, class, political, minorities? Care to answer?"

ulTRAX: It SHOULD be self-evident to anyone who invests 30 seconds of thought into the issue that states can govern with cities and towns remaining independent legal entities. There's NO need for those states to be a federation of those cities and towns each deserving their own chamber in state government where a town of 5000 has an equal vote with a city of 500,000.

kiahzero: I'll accept that argument, so long as you attack the United Nations under the same argument.

Are you evading another key question? Of course this cuts to the core of the internal contradictions in your argument. It PROVES there IS an existing model where citizens can have local control without a unitary government OR a need for an anti-democratic state government. There's NO reason why this model can not be used on the federal level... except, of course, unless someone values the politics of the dead over the living.

The issue here is morality and fairness of representation. And not I am not contradicting myself. I have stated repeatedly that federal systems with such unequal representation MAY be necessary because in the short term the value of a union is greater than the political costs of a less than democratic government. However I have ALSO said that I do NOT believe federal arrangements should forever arrest political development of a nation. That is what has happened in the US. The first 13 colonies may have had some claim to sovereignty... but certainly the last 37 states did not. For 220 years the reform-proof nature of the Constitution combined with a secular religion that has grown up around the Framers, have prevented the US from moving to a government that is more democratic.

ulTRAX: Red herring alert: there's NO philosophical requirement that republics must be anti-democratic. And you are wrong: SOME US citizens DO enjoy a bigger vote (more power) at the expense of others... and this is a function of the Constitution. If this arrangement can lead to minority government... then it is anti-democratic.....

Going back to an earlier post... you wrote: "They aren't given "special powers," and the Constitution is hardly anti-democratic (unless you want to argue over 'true' democracy vs. republic, which is an entirely different battle)."

It's timed you back up your claims. Please demonstrate how a government DESIGNED to provide small states disproportionate power to the number of citizens... and that can lead to a minority of the US population installing a President AND also in control of the Senate... can in ANY manner be democratic.

[ulTRAX]

45. response 2

ulTRAX: ROTF... our election system is designed to only give those voting for the winning candidate any representation. Some 40-49% of the population goes without representation. I certainly don't consider my Representative to be representing my Progressive views... nor do I have such representation in the Senate. So just what do I get for my taxes?

kiahzero : You are confusing how a representative is chosen with who that representative represents. A member of Congress represents his/her entire district, though not all of the people may agree with his/her decisions. A Senator represents his/her entire state (except for states that split the state up into two Senatorial districts), similarly. The President represents the entire country.

I'm confusing nothing. By your "logic" the President "represents" the nation... therefore we on the Left should feel represented by Bush. Where? At official state function? It SHOULD be clear... unless one resorts to specious arguments, that Bush does NOT represent the interests of anyone but the Right. Clearly there ARE other models such as proportional representations that provide just about ALL citizens representation... and it's this model I favor for the Senate.

kiahzero: If you are arguing against FPTP voting, you will find no opponent with me. If you check my posting history, I am a loud advocate for Condorcet voting.

You may CLAIM to be for any voting reform you want. But it's also clear from your posts I've read that you have NO desire to push for ANY reforms that would make our Constitution more democratic. Please explain this contradiction.

ulTRAX: The BEST the EC can do is affirm the popular vote... in which case it's NOT needed. At worst... it can impose upon the nation a candidate REJECTED by the people......

kiahzero : Is the third assertion in leiu of argument the charm?

It's simply a statement of fact. It's obvious that the onus is on those who support the EC to demonstrate that will ALWAYS lead to a clear reflection of the will of the majority.

kiahzero : The Electoral College has benefits, is what I said, and it is true.

The onus is on you to demonstrate that IF there are alleged benefits to the EC.. that they are SO great that they are worth the risk of anti-democratic, morally illegitimate government.

kiahzero : "As others have stated, the EC serves a practical purpose of limiting events like Florida 2000."

Are you writing that with a straight face? I fully understand that many have NOT understood the REAL lesson of 2000. It was BECAUSE of the EC that Bush was able to "win" despite being rejected by some 3 MILLION citizens who favored a moderate to progressive agenda. If an election system can not accurately measure the will of the people... then it is, by definition, dysfunctional.

kiahzero : "If most states have a clear winner, but the popular vote is close, the EC limits the fights over recounts to a few areas of the country, rather than nationwide."

How do states deal with this issue when governors are elected? I do not fear this prospect. Better to have recounts to establish the true popular vote winner than a system to impose a person REJECTED by the people on the nation.

Kiahzero: Note that this is not advocacy for the Electoral College, but rather, simply a factual statement that it has positives as well as negatives."

Then cut to the chase. Do YOU favor the abolishment of the EC? Yes or No? Do you favor a popular vote? A popular vote with a run-off?

[ulTRAX]

40. repost of censored post with additional censorhip

ulTRAX: (censored) Has ANYONE suggested the Constitution be EASY to amend? The ONLY issue is how to protect minority rights AND the majority's right to govern.

kiahzero: "You have suggested in the past that the Constitution should be easier to amend... IIRC, a mere 60% majority in a popular vote."

More distortions. For the record I made NUMEROUS suggestions to get the discussion going. I NEVER claimed I favored any one suggestion I made. None the less you go on to argue from against your own straw man:

kiahzero: My example would create a serious problem under such a system... the First Amendment would be out the window, and I would be on the stake. That's hardly irrational - that's a rational actor concerned about his own safety.

ulTRAX: Gee... really? The Senate represents the states? Well... then I retract everything I've said. NOT! The 17th amendment striped away the illusion that the Senate represents some legal entities called states. It's now abundantly clear that the Senate only represents US CITIZENS living in those states. As such... it's nothing but a vote weighing scheme and ALL such schemes can lead to minority government.

kiahzero: "The Senate continues to represent the States - the 17th Amendment just changed the way the State selected the Senators that would represent it."

The 17th amendment PROVES that the Senate is nothing but a vote weighing scheme. It amplifies the power of any citizen in Wyoming 68X over any citizen in California. Deal with it.

kiahzero: "I will give you one thing that is abundantly clear - you support a unitary government."

I support the elimination of state suffrage in the federal government. I do NOT favor the elimination of states as semi-sovereign entities. You can call that whatever you want.

kiahzero: "Why not advocate for that, rather than these ad hoc attempts to graft a unitary government onto a federal system... if you're going to eliminate the Senate and the Electoral College, why not take the 10th Amendment out with it, and make the United States a top down government?"

State suffrage and reserved powers are DIFFERENT issues. Yet since you refuse to see that distinction... you raise another red herring:

kiahzero: Perhaps because you know that's a non-starter: Americans like their government close to home.

It SHOULD be self-evident to anyone who invests 30 seconds of thought into the issue that states can govern with cities and towns remaining independent legal entities. There's NO need for those states to be a federation of cities and towns each deserving their own chamber in state government where a town of 5000 has an equal vote with a city of 500,000.

ulTRAX: I've asked this a million times... and NEVER get a good answer from you defenders of an anti-democratic Constitution. What's the MORAL justification TODAY for SOME US citizens, based on residence... to be forever given special powers at the expense of other citizens? Why not other groups? Racial, gender, class, political, minorities? Care to answer? Or is the best you can do is parrot 1787 politics?

kiahzero : "They aren't given "special powers," and the Constitution is hardly anti-democratic (unless you want to argue over 'true' democracy vs. republic, which is an entirely different battle)."

Red herring alert: there's NO philosophical requirement that republics must be anti-democratic. And you are wrong: SOME US citizens DO enjoy a bigger vote (more power) at the expense of others... and this is a function of the Constitution. If this arrangement can lead to minority government... then it is anti-democratic. Deal with it.

kiahzero: "Every citizen of the United States has a voice in the House of Representatives to represent him/her at the National level..."

ROTF... our election system is designed to only give those voting for the winning candidate any representation. Some 40-49% of the population goes without representation. I certainly don't consider my Representative to be representing my Progressive views... nor do I have such representation in the Senate. So just what do I get for my taxes?

kiahzero :"....a voice in the Senate to represent his/her state at the National level, and a voice in electing the President to lead the nation, and represent him/her to the world."

But we already know the Senate only represents those CITIZENS in a state... not the "state". As for the president... who does Bush represent when he was REJECTED by some 3 MILLION citizens who preferred a liberal-progressive agenda? Your (censored) recitation of 4th grade history gets (censored).

kiahzero: You have a reasonably valid argument on the Electoral College, and I don't believe that I've ever defended it. I will argue, however, that it is not without its benefits."

The BEST the EC can do is affirm the popular vote... in which case it's NOT needed. At worst... it can impose upon the nation a candidate REJECTED by the people. Deal with it.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulTRAX]

52. repost with ADDITIONAL self-censorship

I have no idea why my post was nuked for a SECOND time. A serious discussion is pointless when posts are deleted without valid cause. I tire of cleaning up something I see no real problems with. Self-censorship in parentheses.

kiahzero wrote: "That's odd... that sounds exactly like the rhetoric coming from the Right Wingers... "Waah... I can't discriminate against gay people anymore, because the minority is oppressing me!"

I have NO idea (what) you're (talk)ing about. You KNOW damn well that my main objection to the Constitution is that it's a vote weighing system that (can give) the MINORITY the power to rule. You can deal with this simple truth or play forever (deny it).

kiahzero: "Once again, you've neglected the fact that the United States is a federal government, not a unitary government. That means that there are sub-governments within the overarching government. These are not "anti-democratic", as you try to cast it. The smallest states have rights, just as the largest states do."

I SHOULD have thought my last post was clear that I do NOT care what government we have. (Many with your view ) probably would have defended slavery since its protection in the Constitution was a central compromise in federalism. (They) consider our anti-democratic government as an unalterable fact.... while I see democratic principles are a moral imperative that should NEVER be held hostage to ancient history or immoral law. This is OUR nation now. I will NOT renounce my ideals in favor of the politics of people 200 years dead. Obviously (others) do not share this view. OK... (if you are one of them) just come out and admit it.

Kiahzero: "Minority rights are not protected through law when the law can be changed on the whim of the majority. Imagine for a moment that the 70% Christian figure that we hear touted so often were 70% Christian fundamentalists a la Falwell. How protected would I be in your system, as a Pagan that most would like to burn at the stake? The answer is not very."

Red Herring Alert!!! Why is it (some) must get irrational when defending the Constitution? Oh... that's right.. because (some) don't believe in democracy and (they are) operating on the assumption that this (topic) is a secular religion. Your example is just another ( ) red herring. Has ANYONE suggested the Constitution be EASY to amend? The ONLY issue is how to protect minority rights AND the majority's right to govern.

ulTRAX: "(Some people's) problem is (they) are so locked into traditional constitutional apologetics that (they) continually rationalize away the defects in the Constitution. Even my attempts to state something as simple as "from the point of view of democracy, the EC and Senate are irredeemable".... (they) miss the point entirely and go off on a tangent that we're not a unitary government. Give me a break. Do you, (for instance) REALLY think I don't know that? I'm critiquing the Constitution by getting back to first principles. You (seem to) confuse the compromising AWAY of principles in the Constitution as the NEW principles."

Kiahzero: "That's because it's not simple - you assume that they are "irredeemable", and go from there. The Senate, as a body, is not intended to represent the people - it is intended to represent the states. Hence my cogent (non-tangential) point that the United States is not a unitary government."

Gee... really? The Senate represents the states? Well... then I retract everything I've said. NOT! The 17th amendment striped away the illusion that the Senate represents some legal entities called states. It's now abundantly clear that the Senate only represents US CITIZENS living in those states. As such... it's nothing but a vote weighing scheme and ALL such schemes can lead to minority government.

I've asked this a million times... and NEVER get a good answer from (the) defenders of an anti-democratic Constitution. What's the MORAL justification TODAY for SOME US citizens, based on residence... to be forever given special powers at the expense of other citizens? Why not other groups? Racial, gender, class, political, minorities? Care to answer? Or is the best (they) can do is parrot 1787 politics?

[tallyho]

8. Too many words

Please summarize into one paragraph for clarity.

[ulTRAX]

11. ROTF

You want ME to spend 5 minutes of MY time to condense an article that would take YOU 5 minutes to read? What you ever going to do when faced with a real book?

[tallyho]

12. A real book?

First of all I refuse to read any book that talks down to me and can't interest me for more than three pages. For every book that has inspired me to continue in its reading I have written three books of experience of the subject at hand.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rdfi-defi]

17. if you want a challenging scientific book

read dahl's a peface to democratic theory

[ulTRAX]

47. then you're in luck

tallyho wrote: "First of all I refuse to read any book that talks down to me.."

Well you're in luck. This book doesn't do that. There were only 749 words.

"...and can't interest me for more than three pages."

You're in luck again... the excerpt was NOT more than 3 pages. Not that it now matters since it was edited down to the point that it can no longer be the basis of a worthwhile discussion.

[tkmorris]

25. Sorry

I won't offer an opinion on the original posting at all but if you can't be troubled to read a few hundred words in the interest of understanding a point you might want to consider making more of an effort.

The world has been dumbed down far too much as it is. Expecting it to be condensed into a comic strip so you can understand it is simply going too far. Either learn to absorb more information or accept that your opinion is uninformed and therefore essentially worthless.

[ulTRAX]

34. if one hates to read... then the DU is the wrong place to be

Except for some streaming audio links... everything here is text-based information.

[rdfi-defi]

16. that book is great, so is dahl

also by dahl: a preface to democratic theory

on democracy

[mulethree]

22. loophole article 4.3?

Do you think it was intentional, that the small states are mostly original colonies and later states are so very large? An intentional effort to by the small states to retain some leverage that they would have lost if we were say 500 states instead of 50?

The constitution says you could merge or split states with the permission of their legislatures and congress. It does not say what majority would be needed or anything about ratification for admitting new states that formed by splitting old large states. But, if you had some hot amendment that the small states were blocking, seems you could split the larger states into many small ones and thereby attain your 75% ratification and also lessen the inequity of the Senate.

So instead of california having 40,000,000 people yet the same senate representation and amendment-ratification power as the million people of Rhode Island, you could split california into 40 states and correct the inequity.

Hypothetically.

[ulTRAX]

27. more states........

There's a great Mother Jones article from 1998 called "75 Stars". Check it out.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1998/01/lind_DUP2.html

[mulethree]

38. Thanks, good read

[rman]

31. the fact that it's old doesn't matter

what matters is whether it's any good or not.

so instead of focussing on the age of the documents, let's focus on the content.

[ulTRAX]

33. I agree...

So many confuse the Constitution's being virtually reform-proof with proof that it must be a work of genius because it's hardly been changed.

[MadProphetMargin]

36. Why should we uphold it? Oh, I dunno...maybe because it's the single

best system of ensuring human rights the world has ever seen?

It's not perfect, but it's still the best game in town.

[leyton]

41. Indeed. The Constitution has on the whole worked quite well.

Yeah, we have our quirks that ought to be ironed out - like the electoral college (although then we couldn't have swing states! only swing people). But what other country has a government as stable as ours?

The U.S. government has been around since 1789 without any new Constitutions being written; we survived a civil war because Lincoln believed so strongly in the unity of the country. I can't think of any world governments that have been around that long, except for perhaps Britain and maybe a couple other European constitutional monarchies (the Netherlands? I don't know). Despite our current troubles, we're doing pretty well, I think.

The Constitution was not written by perfect people, but then again, it's not like we have better people now to do it differently. It has served us well and has earned its place in the appendices of Social Studies textbooks. :)

[ulTRAX]

42. On what OBJECTIVE scale has your claim been evaluated?

MadProphetMargin wrote: "Why should we uphold it? Oh, I dunno...maybe because it's the single best system of ensuring human rights the world has ever seen?

On what OBJECTIVE scale has your claim been evaluated? There's a tendency among American's to believe that our Constitution is emulated throughout the world when the reality is our form of government has been almost uniformly rejected by the other advanced democracies.

I have to add that there's ONE key right our Constitution FAILS to protect: that of guaranteeing its citizens morally legitimate government based on democratic principles. Perhaps you believe that a minority of US citizens has the right to install a president or have the bulk of the Senate. Well?

[leyton]

46. The electoral college should be done away with,

but as for the minority controlling the Senate - that's just the way things work. In a district-based legislature, the minority controlling the Senate is an innate possibility.

Would you rather have a national Senate election whereby Senate seats are apportioned by the percentage of people who vote for the generic Democrat/generic Republican? If you had that, two problems (if not more) arise: first off, there's no one who specifically represents one state and those constituents. A portion of what Senators do is help their consituents navigate the federal government, look out for the nonpartisan (pork) interests of the state. Second, if, say, 45 seats were apportioned to Democrats, who selects those 45? The party leaders?

I don't really see any alternative as far as Senate representation is concerned.

[ulTRAX]

50. third parties never will stand a chance unless there is basic reform

leyton wrote: "The electoral college should be done away with, but as for the minority controlling the Senate - that's just the way things work. In a district-based legislature, the minority controlling the Senate is an innate possibility."

From the beginning of the Republic the Senate has ALWAYS had sates with a minority of the population hold a majority of the seats. Where once it was about 23%, it's now down to 15% heading to 10%. At what point is the Senate SO anti-democratic that even you will see it as illegitimate?

Leyton: "Would you rather have a national Senate election whereby Senate seats are apportioned by the percentage of people who vote for the generic Democrat/generic Republican?"

Actually I prefer some third party alternatives. Currently they will NEVER stand a chance in this system because as political minorities they lack majority status in any district to win a seat even though they may make up a sizeable minority nationally. Unless there is a change in the system of government, these third parties, and those citizens who support them, are doomed to never be represented at the federal level.

Leyton: " If you had that, two problems (if not more) arise: first off, there's no one who specifically represents one state and those constituents. A portion of what Senators do is help their constituents navigate the federal government, look out for the nonpartisan (pork) interests of the state."

I have no idea where you get that notion. If the Senate were reformed... there would still the House to represent regional interests. Any citizen is multi-faceted. Why should BOTH houses represent regional interests at the expense of others such as ideology?

Leyton: "Second, if, say, 45 seats were apportioned to Democrats, who selects those 45? The party leaders?"

How do other nations with proportional representation accomplish this?

[leyton]

51. I think we are not on the same page.

"From the beginning of the Republic the Senate has ALWAYS had sates with a minority of the population hold a majority of the seats. Where once it was about 23%, it's now down to 15% heading to 10%. At what point is the Senate SO anti-democratic that even you will see it as illegitimate? "

I'm afraid I misinterpreted what you said, then. By minority controlling the Senate, I thought you were referring to a minority of Republicans (since there are more Dems nationwide) controlling the Senate. My bad.

[ulTRAX]

43. Edit was NOT necessary

The excerpt was fully in compliance with the "fair use" provisions of Section 107, Title 17 of the United States Code. It's not as if this material was available elsewhere on the web to link to.

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

[ulTRAX]

49. FULL EXCERPT HERE

http://members.tripod.com/romcache/dahl.html