Wherein does legitimacy for the existing US federal government reside?

Not if the "My grand daddy was a <blank>; my daddy was a <blank>; and By God I'm voting <blank>!" types are considered.

What of Kennedy, et al? Year after year the voters of the state send him back to create laws which screw up the rest of the country for no other reason than he is a democrat from a democrat state.

Think he's dangerous now? Wait until he's dead and the "Ted Kennedy Memorial <fill in the blank> Act" bills start marching up the aisle of the Senate.
 
Jim, you have answered your own question.

As long as the majority (of those that vote), keep voting, then the government is authentic and legitimate. Those that don't vote merely indicate acquiescence to the status quo.

The above necessarily assumes that the voting is not forced or coerced.
 
"What of Kennedy, et al? Year after year the voters of the state send him back to create laws which screw up the rest of the country for no other reason than he is a democrat from a democrat state."

And what of him?

He's the only Senator from the only state that sends representatives to Congress?

In YOUR view people send him to Congress to screw up the nation.

What about the view of the people who have repeatedly sent him to Congress? Thing their view might just be a little different?

What, then, gives YOUR view more legitimacy than their view?

Note that "I'm a God fearing Christian conservative voting gun owner!" doesn't convey legitimacy to one's opinions.
 
Note that "I'm a God fearing Christian conservative voting gun owner!" doesn't convey legitimacy to one's opinions.
Click to expand...

That's why I said earlier that folks are avoiding the issue of assuming that legitimacy has some universal and/or theological truth that they agree with it. Violate that and the gummint ain't legit.

So the debate will devolve to one about whether one party seems to get through a policy that you don't agree with and then it's not legitimate as your theology of legitimacy is obviously the only truth.

If Kennedy or Bush got through a law by the normal legislative means as they were elected by normal democratic elections, and you don't like it because of your theological surety of the way liberty and/or government is defined, then it's not legit.

I am old enough to remember racist laws that were passed by 'democratic' means and supported by various 'preachers' speaking the 'word of god'. Those supporters thought those were legit.

When the majority of the country moved away from those positions, the laws were changed in the legislature and the court. Then troops enforced them.

Power gives you the veil of legitimacy. Sit and think your view is the only legit one. Or think about the real dynamics of human behavior and governance.
 
Antipitas said:
As long as the majority (of those that vote), keep voting, then the government is authentic and legitimate. Those that don't vote merely indicate acquiescence to the status quo.
Click to expand...

Quite true. It is the abuses which define the government in many people's minds -- thus the rise in militias and rampant patriot mythology several years ago.

The same government which decries the use of loopholes in the laws for the common man are busy as beavers exploiting the loopholes in the Constitution. Some examples would be the Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, Para 18, and the Supremacy Clause.

The commerce clause is now taken as empowering the federal government to regulate intrastate commerce as well as interstate commerce -- a view not held until very recently -- spawned by firearms laws. (The iron ore that was smelted into steel came from Canada; and was forged in Pennsylvania; and sold to a supplier in New Hampshire; which sold it to a firearm manufacturer in Massachusetts; which machined the raw billet into a pistol barrel so anything else the barrel is attached to becomes interstate commerce because the barrel is made from components which traveled in interstate commerce prior to becoming the finished product.) :rolleyes: The drunken logic of legislators knows no bounds if it furthers their agendae.

Article I, Section 8, Para 18, in the minds of most congresspersons, gives them unlimited power to do whatever they please. They forget that the courts ruled long ago that the federal government acts as an agent of and to the states; but politicians believe the Supremacy Clause declares them to be the Lords and Masters of the states.

As I said before, it is the abuses which set the bar for legitimacy in the minds of many.
 
Mike Irwin said:
He's the only Senator from the only state that sends representatives to Congress?

In YOUR view people send him to Congress to screw up the nation.
Click to expand...

I apologize if that is the way it came across. What I meant is that the state of MA is a democrat state full of D'd which only vote for D's regardless of how bad and they do so time after time after time.

Look at RI. It took the death of John Chaffee to get him out of there after 22 years and what did the electorate do? They installed his son, Lincoln Chaffee, in his place. It was ascension by election. Nothing more.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
So the debate will devolve to one about whether one party seems to get through a policy that you don't agree with and then it's not legitimate as your theology of legitimacy is obviously the only truth.
Click to expand...

But then there are the R's who vote the Liberal ticket -- ala Olympia Snow -- and the D's who vote the Conservative ticket -- ala Dingell -- so the party line argument does not hold water. There will always be those who not only cross the aisle they put on the uniform.

Agendae rule the day and one's agenda will trump party.
 
So what - it is still my point that legitimacy is ill defined and if one doesn't agree then it is apriori illegitimate.

I return to legitimacy is what the powerful define as their policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top