My fellow Americans, I just finished reviewing my son’s fifth-grade homework assignment on the Mayflower Compact and was explaining to my son that "majority rules" is the basic tenet of our government and its constitution. This got me thinking about our current political climate. There are some cynical elements in our political landscape that constantly engage in obstructive agendas that continue to undermine the majority’s wishes.
Once a majority has expressed its mandate at the ballot box, it is the fair and moral civic duty to uphold and support the implementation of the majority’s wishes.
Sabotaging progress is abominable and has a detrimental effect on our already fragile national psyche.
What part of the Mayflower Compact does the Republican Party’s leadership not understand?
chatmandu002 posted at 2:29 pm on Wed, Dec 12, 2012.
Who wrote this letter?
Anyway, just because the democrats won the presidency doesn't mean the republicans have to roll over and play dead, even though the liberal/progressives would like for that to happen. The republicans were elected by a majority in their races also.
truth posted at 2:42 pm on Wed, Dec 12, 2012.
Why I'm a pro-choice Republican: While pregnant with my third child, I asked my doctor it I could get a tubal ligation later; he informed me that Texas law restricted surgical sterilization based on a women's age and number of children. As a conserative who believes in personal responsibility, this got me thinking "government had no business dictatating my childbearing decisions." Today, however, pro-choice views are verboten in the Republican party. So we end up running extremest candidates like Todd Akin who "confuses rape with sex," or hypocrites like Rep. Scott DesJarais of Tennessee, a pro-life doctor who, it's been revealed, had sex with multiple patients and twice helped his girlfriends get abortions. My fellow Republicans: there's nothing wrong with principal morals. But we should "live with, not legislate it." Victoria Toensing The Washington Post
Dale Whiting posted at 5:22 am on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
A basic tenant of religion is free choice. Block it and you block the Devine Plan. But how many religions are advocating the blocking of choice? And how many adherants are standing by watching this?
Bluepoet posted at 7:28 am on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
I agree with Chatmandu (I know--thought I'd not ever type that!), about the Republicans not having to roll over and play dead. However, he conveniently missed the point of the anonymous OP...that there's a difference between checks and balances, that are designed to protect the minority opinion, and obstructionism, as has been in effect, since Obama took office. There is no debate about this, as the Republicans have stated over and over: this is their political strategy. It's also why Boehner had to vote against himself last week, on his own proposal, when his bluff was called...it was like watching a robot self destruct, when faced with a logical conundrum...
JNelson posted at 9:12 am on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
""...majority rules" is the basic tenet of our government and its constitution."
"Once a majority has expressed its mandate at the ballot box, it is the fair and moral civic duty to uphold and support the implementation of the majority’s wishes."
Let' amend that first quote to make clear that the "majority rules" tenet applies ONLY to legislation and policies which are Constitutional.
And that applies also to the second quote: no citizen is required to support and obey "majority rule" legislation which violates his Constitutional rights. In fact, one could argue that it is the moral duty of every citizen to oppose such legislation and it is particularly incumbent upon those elected to office to be conscientious in doing so because they've taken an oath to honor and protect that very Constitution.
VofReason posted at 12:07 pm on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
This is interesting. What if our friends on the Mayflower spendt oh let's say 16 trillion dollars more than they had. My guess is they wouldn't have been able to buy anything- food included, would have all died and we wouldn't have had the USA. That was before credit and living under your means was still envogue. I must be reading our friend Truth's statement wrong here, but Pro Choice as defined speaks to the woman being able to murdur her baby when she was responsible enough to prevent the pregnancy. Not about preventing the ability to get pregnant. And for mixed up "conservative" Dale, I belive religions get a little sideways on "choice" when it involves murdering babies. Just sayin'
DonMey posted at 4:42 pm on Thu, Dec 13, 2012.
Probably the part where it isn't actually a part of our government....
We are a Democratic REPUBLIC, not a Democracy. We believe in the rights of the Individual.
Rich posted at 9:54 pm on Fri, Dec 14, 2012.
The government is set up to be a bit chaotic, so that tyranny isn't possible. It has devolved from it's set up, because simply the original voters were land holders, thus stake holders. The Mayflower Compact was signed by 20% of the people involved. The majority is defined by who votes, who counts the votes and who is allowed to pose the choices. Currently the electorate consists of about 47% non-stake holders, two party organizations control the count and only they can put choices on the ballot. The result is a society slowly sinking into anarchy. The founders tried, it worked well, for a while.
Arizona Willie posted at 8:25 am on Sat, Dec 15, 2012.
Rich, originally only landowners were allowed to vote.
Those were the days of plantations and an agrarian economy, pre Industrial Revolution.
To correlate that to today --- only business owners and farmers and ranchers would be allowed to vote.
I somehow don't think the people would stand for that any more.
Although I can certainly see arguments for restricting voting rights to certain classes.
For instance only people with an IQ of 100 or greater should be allowed to vote.
People with inadequate mental firepower should not be making decisions for the country.
That would never fly either.
Rich posted at 9:02 pm on Sat, Dec 15, 2012.
Willie, I said it was meant to be chaotic. The object was to check tyranny. It has worked well so far. It would work the same way no matter how you limit voting. The government as currently constituted cannot control either the economy or the society. If you limit voting the devolution into anarchy is slower. It would last longer if the shadow governments of the Republican and Democrat cartels were removed, but it would still end the same way. If we kept it limited, it might have worked, now we look to Obama to support us, can't work without us, and saviors are the stuff of legend. Tyranny will come in through the back door, should have bricked it up.
remo303 posted at 3:10 am on Sun, Dec 16, 2012.
Please stop reviewing your son's elementary school homework. You are unfit to make a valid assessment of the content or context.
We live in a representational Republic - not a democracy. The voters merely grant/deny their agreement with the laws as drafted by their elected officials.
Again - please stop pretending to understand an elementary lesson on government.
p.s. please stop having children. You are too stupid to breed.