What Part of 80% Majority Don’t You Understand?
Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, TheFrom 43rd State Blues, Eva Grecius posted a Boise Weekly Article by Jill Kuratis, who is furious at “Republican Bullying”. She writes:
In the Statehouse, their direct target is Democrats, who are getting the crap beat out of them by Republicans. But the real losers are the citizens of Idaho.
The effect of relentless bullying is that victims become demoralized–and paralyzed. Being a very small minority party isn’t easy, but Democrats, perhaps exhausted by their efforts going nowhere, haven’t put forth much legislation this session. Republicans propose new laws in heaps and piles, knowing they can drop some to win others. Democrats have a slim file folder containing only bills that seem to have a good chance…
Of the 54 bills on the House Calendar as of Monday, 51 are sponsored by Republicans and three by Democrats. That number reflects the measures that have passed through House committees and made it to the floor for eventual vote. The number doesn’t count the ones killed in committee, which would show that the ratio is not nearly that lopsided. It points to the power of the majority to control what issues get anywhere.
Okay, so the Republicans are bullies for acting like the Majority. How big a Majority do Republicans have in Idaho? They control 80% of the Senate Seats and 81% of the House Seats. So with less than 20% of the Legislature, Democrats should be getting their way and getting all their legislation up to the floor?
I hate to break this to Jill, but if you get throttled in an election, you don’t get to control the agenda. Its not called being a bully, its called being a majority.
In a related note, over at Red State Rebels Julie points out that there were 15 letters to the editor against the Marriage Amendment recently in the Statesman. Wow, then I guess the left has nothing to fear, as they’re going to whine to voters this election about the big ol’ bad Republican bullies forcing marriage protection on the people of Idaho, who will probably ratify it by about a 2:1 margin.
Linked to Basil’s Blog and Jo’s Cafe.
Comment by The Random Yak [Visitor]
Really have to love the Moonbat Political Worldview. Rule #1: When we are the majority, we do things our way because we are what the people wanted. Otherwise you’re oppressing the people. Rule #2: When we’re a minority, we do things our way because minorities need to be listened to and obeyed. Otherwise you’re oppressing the people.
“Equidistance from Reality…party of Moonbat.”
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Now, you get it.
Comment by Andrea Graham [Member]
this is what I call being a sore loser.
Comment by Sean Sirrine [Visitor]
Hmm, I understand your point Adam, but I have to say that I’m a bit perplexed at this belief in allowing the majority to do whatever it wants. There is a term for that coined by one of our Founding Fathers; “Tyranny of the Majority”. That is the reason that we created a republic rather than a democracy and the reason that the minority position, (whoever they happen to be), deserves equal treatment. To do otherwise is to give in to mob rule. It is this type of government that now protects women from sexism and blacks from slavery even though at the time the majority was against giving them any protection. Just because a bunch of people want something doesn’t make it right.
Comment by The Random Yak [Visitor]
I will concede the point that “just because a bunch of people want something, that doesn’t make it right.” Witness Nazi Germany – uncontrolled rule by an evil majority leads to evil. However, to state that the minority deserves “equal treatment” is an ambiguous statement that deserves clarification. If you mean that no one’s interests should be ignored or abused outright, I agree with you. Individuals deserve to be treated equally (a fact the Bible not just mentions but commands) with individual rights which deserve respect regardless of the party in power. But if you mean that the minority should have an equal right to have its views made law, you are mistaken. Representative government means that the party which has been elected is the one chosen by the people to put its plans into effect. If the people elect a conservative, Republican Congress, that means the majority of the people wish a conservative government, and under our Constitution they have the right to see those wishes carried out. If the majority wishes a liberal Congress, they have the right to elect them – and the individuals wishing to be elected have the opportunity to state their views and attempt to persuade the voters that their plans are better than the opposition. If that fails, it means the voters were not persuaded – and that those minority plans and positions should not be put into effect because the people responsible for electing the government wished it so. Mob rule is not the same as control by a majority party. Majority parties can deteriorate into mob rule, but to equate them from moment 1 is to make a dangerous – and mistaken – assumption about the nature and functionality of representative government.
Comment by Adam Graham [Member]
Yeah, if we read the article, the author’s mad because Republicans holding an 80% majority are governing according to Republican principles.
Comment by Michael [Visitor]
Hmm, I understand your point Adam, but I have to say that I’m a bit perplexed at this belief in allowing the majority to do whatever it wants.
Sean
That is the reason that we created a republic rather than a democracy and the reason that the minority position, (whoever they happen to be), deserves equal treatment.
Sean
What a complete bunch of nonsense The founders did not establish a Republic so that the minority position would get equal treatment. It was established to protect State rights and to allow for the growth of the Union so that other states could only enter if they agreed to also be Republics entering into a larger Republic.
We have certain individual rights called Civil Liberties which are protected under The Constitution, The Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution ) .
Statutory laws and administrative laws are bound by the Constitution. Therefore, the minority rights of Democrats in
Idaho are not in any danger. Also, the nature of the protection and individual rights as outlined by Sean is simply wrong.
So unless Adam was arguing that we should do away with the Constitution and it’s protections, we are in no danger of mob rule. Nor are we going back to slavery. The 13th and 14th amendments see to that.
Comment by Andrea Graham [Member]
au contrair, the thirteen and fourteenth amendments only apply to persons. To bring back slavery, one need merely find a right in the constitution for parents to determine whether their “products of conception” are persons. And why not? Whether a child in the womb is a human being or not is already dependent upon her mother’s opinion. If a woman has the right to kill her baby, why doesn’t she have the right to sell her child into slavery, or worse, for spare parts?
Comment by Michael [Visitor]
If a woman has the right to kill her baby, why doesn’t she have the right to sell her child into slavery, or worse, for spare parts?
Andrea
The answer is clear. Once a child is born it automatically is guaranteed the rights of a citizen. Thus the child is protected by the Constitution, and it’s amendments.
There is a debate over when a fetus becomes a human being. But we have a consensus that American citizens are guaranteed, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.