Thank you and likewise...

I just checked in with Mr. Goggle, rla, where I found these following entries:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&am...&fr2=sp-top

Common Ground Common Sense
... County- Since becoming Rensselaer County Environmental Health Director, ... was PLAINTIFF HUNG IN EFFIGY OUTSIDE THE BUILDING (East Greenbush Town Hall, and ...

commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?act=findpost&pid=627179 - 401k

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...mp;#entry627179

Common Ground Common Sense > BUSH APPOINTEE in Northern District of New ...
East Greenbush being a town in the County of Rensselaer in the State of ... As the Director of the Environmental Health Division, it is my responsibility to ..

commongroundcommonsense.org/.../lofiversion/index.php/t24721-1700.html - 372k

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/for...24721-1700.html

So perhaps we are having some impact at stomping out ignorance in here ....

Which in its turn might get me stomped out to protect that ignorance ....

And the CORRUPTION in government up here which feeds off of it ....

And so ....

I wonder how accurate your assessment is here, rla, that US culture has come to view the Constitution more as Scripture than a working Document (Contract) which contains within itself the provisions for Changing it ....

I wonder how you have come by this information, because it does not seem to jibe with my own straw polls taken over the years ....

I have found people to be generally unaware of what the Constitution is ....

Except for the pornographers, of course ....

Pornographers love the U.S. Constitution because it gives them the freedom to be pornographers, and the U.S. courts seem to love the pornographers ....

Outside of them, however, ignorance of what the U.S. Constitution means seems more the average to me ....

And do you know how the U.S. Constitution MUST be amended, rla?

Do you seriously believe that changes can be made to the Constitution by publicly elected politicians supporting consumers, not privately selected corporate lobbyists supporting profiteering at the expense of humanity?

And so ....

I wonder if you can see the apparent inconsistency in your position here, rla ....

In the past, you have seemed to be very contemptuous of these BLUE DAWG democrats, whatever on earth they in fact might be ....

In one prior post in another thread, I think you had them as a bunch of people who went into a room together with each other so that they could go around and smell each other's backsides ....

So when you then tie them in with REPUBLICANISM, I have you down as being very contemptuous of that VALUE SYSTEM as well ...

And then, you come back around and make lamentations about amending the Constitution and how people view it as scripture instead of a road map ....

AND ....

Somewhere underneath all of that is what I still construe after all these years to be an AGENDA on your part, although I cannot claim to know or fathom what it is or might be ....

You seem to think that some segment of the population, or sub-strata, does not have enough rights, or maybe some other segment or sub-strata has too much rights ....

BUT ....

That is NOT REPUBLICANISM in action, that is PURE DEMOCRACY, such as we have up here where I am, where a MOB can strip other individuals of the most basic of human rights, starting with equal protection of law and due process of law ....

They can do that, because the federal courts up here ALLOW and actually encourage that to take place, so long as it is directed at those who would try and upset the CORRUPT status quo ....

So you have me confused, rla, I must say ....

And so ...

U.S. Constitution: Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article05/

U.S. Constitution: Article V

Proposing a Constitutional Amendment

Thirty-three proposed amendments to the Constitution have been submitted to the States pursuant to this Article, all of them upon the vote of the requisite majorities in Congress and none, of course, by the alternative convention method.

In the Convention, much controversy surrounded the issue of the process by which the document then being drawn should be amended.

At first, it was voted that ''provision ought to be made for the amendment [of the Constitution] whensoever it shall seem necessary'' without the agency of Congress being at all involved.

Acting upon this instruction, the Committee on Detail submitted a section providing that upon the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States Congress was to call a convention for purpose of amending the Constitution.

Adopted, the section was soon reconsidered on the motion of Framers of quite different points of view, some who worried that the provision would allow two-thirds of the States to subvert the others and some who thought that Congress would be the first to perceive the need for amendment and that to leave the matter to the discretion of the States would mean that no alterations but those increasing the powers of the States would ever be proposed.

Madison's proposal was adopted, empowering Congress to propose amendments either on its own initiative or upon application by the legislatures of two-thirds of the States.

When this provision came back from the Committee on Style, however, Gouverneur Morris and Gerry succeeded in inserting the language providing for a convention upon the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the States.

Proposals by Congress

Few difficulties of a constitutional nature have arisen with regard to this method of initiating constitutional change, the only method, as we noted above, so far successfully resorted to.

When Madison submitted to the House of Representatives the proposals from which the Bill of Rights evolved, he contemplated that they should be incorporated in the text of the original instrument.

Instead, the House decided to propose them as supplementary articles, a method followed since.

It ignored a suggestion that the two Houses should first resolve that amendments are necessary before considering specific proposals.

In the National Prohibition Cases, the Court ruled that in proposing an amendment, the two Houses of Congress thereby indicated that they deemed revision necessary.

The same case also established the proposition that the vote required to propose an amendment was a vote of two thirds of the Members present--assuming the presence of a quorum--and not a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership.

The approval of the President is not necessary for a proposed amendment.

The Convention Alternative

Because it has never successfully been invoked, the convention method of amendment is surrounded by a lengthy list of questions.

When and how is a convention to be convened?

Must the applications of the requisite number of States be identical or ask for substantially the same amendment or merely deal with the same subject matter?

Must the requisite number of petitions be contemporaneous with each other, substantially contemporaneous, or strung out over several years?

Could a convention be limited to consideration of the amendment or the subject matter which it is called to consider?

These are only a few of the obvious questions and others lurk to be revealed on deeper consideration.

This method has been close to utilization several times.

Only one State was lacking when the Senate finally permitted passage of an amendment providing for the direct election of Senators.

Two States were lacking in a petition drive for a constitutional limitation on income tax rates.

The drive for an amendment to limit the Supreme Court's legislative apportionment decisions came within one State of the required number, and a proposal for a balanced budget amendment has been but two States short of the requisite number for some time.

Arguments existed in each instance against counting all the petitions, but the political realities no doubt are that if there is an authentic national movement underlying a petitioning by two-thirds of the States there will be a response by Congress.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...cle05/02.html#1

Good Morning Livyjr, from me and Orion, who I spent the last 15 minutes with, helping him chew his hay. I mistakenly thought my sarcasm about the Blue Dawg Democrats would be recognized as a joke. I also understand
that republicanism doesn't mean the same thing as the Republican Party to you. Republicanism never was a major construct for me, growing up in Georgia where I'm sure I associated it with States Rights which was the theme
song of all the non-liberated ignoramuses in my experience...

From a practicle stand point, I think we need to do one of two things:

(1). Make it a little less difficult to amend the Constitution, or

(2). Establish a system of Initiated Act. at the Federal level, similar to what California has at a state level.

Either one would provide a route for building in more, "Constitutional Democracy" into the system...

Well, you are wrong here on several counts Livyjr...

Many of the Founding Fathers were delegates to the Constitutional Conventions and various other meetings of the Continental Congress and as such they had been empowered by their various jurisidctions to represent the people of that jurisidiction on matters including the administration of matters of state...

There representatives had been selected -- I do not know that they had been "duly" elected since at that time I do not believe that there was any lawful system for appointing patriots to these bodies...

Now, you can question whether or not the authority of the Consitutional Convention or the Continental Congress was lawful...before Britain was extricated from the colonies, and the Constitution was adopted -- but these bodies raised money, engaged in treaties with other nations, and exerted a great deal of authority...lawful or not...

Thus, Livyjr - they had the authority to administer and develop a representative government...and in so acting if they deemed it important or necessary to criminalize politics...they could do so...but for the reasons I have stated regarding political questions and the fact that the First Amendment protects the freedom to assemble and free speech which in those days was most often used to promote political discourse I doubt very much you can show any where where they intended to

BUT LIvyjr -- THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY AS REPRESENTATIVES IN DRAFTING THE CONSTITUTION TO CRIMINALIZE ANYTHING THEY WANTED...

Now, the people could have voted down the Constitution had they tried to do so...and they was well within the authority of the people to do...but don't try and rewrite history by suggesting that the scribes of the Constitution and members of the Continental Congress had no authority to act...they had as much authority lawful, or not, as our reprsentatives have today...and the proof of this is the fact that they did act...and their orders were followed...

I never said they were tyrants - I said they could have in constructing a document of representative government criminalized politics...they could have done it Livyjr...this is a fact...

The people could have voted it down, but as the people's representatives if they believed that the best governmental system would be one which criminalized politics they could have made it a part of the Constitution...

Wrong...

The Supreme Court was created in the

The lesser courts were and still are a creature of Congress...

I think you have forgotten what the US Constitution says about creating a Supreme Court...

The first reference of a Supreme Court comes in Article I, Section 8...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/ge...cid=f:sd011.105

"To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court"

You see Livyjr...Congress creates according to the Constitution which I thought you prized...inferior courts to the Supreme Court...not the Supreme Court itself...

The next reference in the document makes it clear that the Executive Branch with the advice and consent of the Legislative Branch appoints the members of the Supreme Court...

SEction 2 of Article 2 enumerates Executive Authority...

Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army
and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several
States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in
each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the
Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant
Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except
in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present
concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the
United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,
and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest
the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the
President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may
happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which
shall expire at the End of their next Session.

And next we get to Article III which establishes the Judicial Branch under the auspices of the US Supreme Court as an independent branch of government...Congress has no authority to create a separate branch of government...

Article. III.

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested
in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme
and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation,
which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and
Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,
and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to
all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to
all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to
which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two
or more States;--[between a State and Citizens of another State;--]*
between Citizens of different States,-- between Citizens of the same
State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between
a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or
Subjects.]*

*Changed by the Eleventh Amendment.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court
shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before
mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction,
both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such
Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be
by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said
Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any
State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may
by Law have directed.
Section. 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in
levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on
the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession
in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason,
but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or
Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Supreme Court was not created by an act of Congress...it was created by the Founding Fathers drafting it as representatives of their constituent colonies in the US Constitution, and then seeking approval of the Legislative bodies of the several states...

One would think you would have learned this in grade school...with the other US History material you have tried to chastise us for not knowing...

Without the Constitution which created the Supreme Court...as the representative body signifying the Judicial Branch - the Judiciary Act of 1789 would have been passed without any authority at all...

I suppose you dispute wiki too?


Other Founders

• Ethan Allen
• Egbert Benson
• Richard Bland
• Aaron Burr
• George Clinton
• Patrick Henry
• John Jay
• Henry Knox
• Henry Lee III
• Thomas Sim Lee
• Robert R. Livingston
• John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the United States.
• Philip Mazzei
• James Monroe, Continental Congressman and fifth President of the United States, the last of the "Republican Generation"
• James Otis, Jr.
• Thomas Paine, who went on to champion the French Revolution in his Rights of Man. He was elected to the National Convention and helped to write the constitution of France.
• Peyton Randolph, President of the First Continental Congress
• Dr.William Rickman, first Director of Hospitals of the Continental Army.
• Gilbert du Motier, marquis de La Fayette French Major General, originally a volunteer, who was vital for the correspondence to and persuasion of France to support the Revolution.
• Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, the German-Prussian General who reorganized the Continental Army and guided it to victory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fath...e_United_States

So you deny that Marshall had a major impact in the adoption of the US Constitution?

How do you define a Founding Father? I thought they were patriots who helped to secure our independence and had prominent roles in the transition from colony to nation...

I think it is silly to deny that John Marshall, the longest sitting Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, did not have such a role...but I'm certain you'll persist...

In 1788, Marshall was selected as a delegate to the Virginia convention responsible for ratifying or rejecting the United States Constitution, which had been proposed by the Philadelphia Convention a year earlier. Together with James Madison and Edmund Randolph, Marshall led the fight for ratification. He was especially active in defense of Article III, which provides for the Federal judiciary.^[2] His most prominent opponent at the ratification convention was Anti-Federalist leader Patrick Henry. Ultimately, the convention approved the Constitution by a vote of 89-79. Marshall identified with the new Federalist Party (which supported a strong national government and commercial interests), rather than Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party (which advocated states' rights and idealized the yeoman farmer and the French Revolution).

Yes, and our Founding Fathers were NOT IMHO afraid of Democracy -- what they were afraid of was the Mob Rule referenced above...

Good afternoon, rla ....

How is orion?

I hope that he is well ....

Here is what I learned in kindergarten about what the U.S. Constitution says about the Supreme Court, tazvil04:

U.S. Constitution: Article III

Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article03/

U.S. Constitution: Article III

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States

ORGANIZATION OF COURTS, TENURE, AND COMPENSATION OF JUDGES

The Constitution is almost completely silent concerning the organization of the federal judiciary.

''That there should be a national judiciary was readily accepted by all.''

But whether it was to consist of one high court at the apex of a federal judicial system or a high court exercising appellate jurisdiction over state courts that would initially hear all but a minor fraction of cases raising national issues was a matter of considerable controversy.

The Virginia Plan provided for a ''National judiciary [to] be established to consist of one or more supreme tribunals, and of inferior tribunals to be chosen by the National Legislature. . . . ''

In the Committee of the Whole, the proposition ''that a national judiciary be established'' was unanimously adopted, but the clause ''to consist of One supreme tribunal, and of one or more inferior tribunals'' was first agreed to, then reconsidered, and the provision for inferior tribunals stricken out, it being argued that state courts could adequately adjudicate all necessary matters while the supreme tribunal would protect the national interest and assure uniformity.

Wilson and Madison thereupon moved to authorize Congress ''to appoint inferior tribunals,'' which carried the implication that Congress could in its discretion either designate the state courts to hear federal cases or create federal courts.

The word ''appoint'' was adopted and over the course of the Convention changed into phrasing that suggests something of an obligation on Congress to establish inferior federal courts.

The ''good behavior'' clause excited no controversy, while the only substantial dispute with regard to denying Congress the power to intimidate judges through actual or threatened reduction of salaries came on Madison's motion to bar increases as well as decreases.

One Supreme Court

The Convention left up to Congress decision on the size and composition of the Supreme Court, the time and place for sitting, its internal organization, save for the reference to the Chief Justice in the impeachment provision, and other matters.

These details Congress filled up in the Judiciary Act of 1789, one of the seminal statutes of the United States.

By the Act, the Court was made to consist of a Chief Justice and five Associate Justices.

The number was gradually increased until it reached a total of ten under the act of March 3, 1863.

As one of the Reconstruction Congress' restrictions on President Andrew Johnson, the number was reduced to seven as vacancies should occur.

The number actually never fell below eight before the end of Johnson's term, and Congress thereupon made the number nine.

Proposals have been made at various times for an organization of the Court into sections or divisions.

No authoritative judicial expression is available, although Chief Justice Hughes in a letter to Senator Wheeler in 1937 expressed doubts concerning the validity of such a device and stated that ''the Constitution does not appear to authorize two or more Supreme Courts functioning in effect as separate courts.''

Congress has also determined the time and place of sessions of the Court.

It utilized this power once in 1801 to change its terms so that for fourteen months the Court did not convene, so as to forestall a constitutional attack on the repeal of the Judiciary Act of 1801.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constit...cle03/01.html#3

Orion was fine this morning during my meditation. When I was out cutting weeds this afternoon, I noticed he was limping. My wife is off today so when she gets back from the Dentist, I'll let her decide whether he needs a Vet.

JUST AS I WAS SAYING, tazvil04 ....

Just as I was saying ....

A CREATURE of Congress ...

The Congress could have made a cockeral or poodle dog the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court if they had wished ....

And the other justices could have been donkeys and Poland China hogs ...

And so ....

Good to hear it, rla, but not about the limp ....

I do my morning meditation up here sitting by the wood fire ....

I like to listen to the sound of the fire burning ....

And so ...

They are one and the same thing, tazvil04 ....

DEMOCRACY is that form of government where a MOB can gang up on individuals and strip them of their most basic human rights, such as freedom of speech ....

We have even seen the attempts to do so in here ....

And I have certainly felt them aimed at me ....

And so ...

HOW do I define a "founding father", tazvil04?

Just as I have done right above here in this thread ....

And so ...

Sure Livyjr...you know all...

I'm not chastizing anyone in here, tazvil04 ....

rla and I are just chatting away about what he missed in kindergarten is all ....

And I in my turn am giving him a kind of guided tour, is all ....

If I was technological, I would make it full technicolor with surround sound, just to keep it interesting ....

And so ...

No I don't, tazvil04 ....

Not by a long shot ...

But one thing that I do know that I know is that I don't like intimidation ....

And I don't like MOBS ....

And so ...

Well, with that limited definition, I guess you won't be surprised if some disagree with your limited definition...

How many wounds in battle must you receive to actually make it as a Founding Father?

How many days must you have served in the Continental Congress?

Interesting, rla ....

Up here where I am, DEMOCRACY IS the theme song of all the non-liberated ignoramuses in my experience ...

And so ...

I don't rightly know ...

So you tell me ...

How many wounds must you have received in combat in Viet Nam to be a democrat candidate for U.S. president in 2004, tazvil04?

And how serious did they need to be?

Bigger than could be covered over by a purple heart band-aid?

And so ...

No one does...but what the Founders were more interested in guarding against was mob rule which they interpreted as pure democracy...the Founders were actually afraid of ALL forms of government, truth be known -- because all forms of government can be done poorly...and really this is what the Founders were guarding against...democracy for the sake of democracy can be just as bad as a monarchy...or even worse...

Well, I do not think that this is the measure that was used to pick the candidate so I would say zero.

I'm not surprised by much, tazvil04, so I wouldn''t at all be surprised by that, to be truthful .....

The republican MOB said different though, tazvil04 ....

And so ...

To do any of that, rla, you have to first AMEND the Constitution ....

To AMEND the Constitution, you first have to make a cogent argument for doing so ...

Merely wanting to or wishing it is not enough ....

And I don't think that you will find anybody interested in emulating California at the federal level .....

If we did that, every year we would have packs of lunatics trying to add all sorts of lunatic ideas to the U.S. Constitution ...

And so ......

And in your example, rla, if X=3 ....

And Y=2 ....

Then the product of X x Y = XY where XY itself = 6 .....

And so ...

And any attempt to amend the Constitution to make it easier for MOBS or FRINGES to amend the Constitution is going to bring you right back to REPUBLICANISM, rla ...

And so ...

We are in agreement here, tazvil04 ....

COMMON GROUND .....

By the way, did you skip kindergarten?

And so ...

A system of Initiated Acts would be in lieu of amending the Constitution. When Congress would not stop the war in
Iraq when a clear majority of the people wanted it stopped, a popular vote could have stopped it...

I doubt it, rla .....

I seriously doubt it ....

There was a popular vote in 2006 to THROW OUT the republicans in Congress to replace them with democrats to stop the war ....

BUT ...

The cowardly democrats were just too cowardly to follow through ....

Sooo ....

Assuming that we did have your alternative system in place and we had voted to stop the war, HOW COULD WE HAVE EVER ENFORCED IT?

If George W. Bush would not obey Congress, why would he have obeyed us?

And so ...

At the time of this nation's founding, tazvil04, there was EQUALITY ....

OR ...

That was a desired goal ....

NO citizen was any better than any other citizen ....

And that included the person who was president ....

They were no supercitizen ...

They were merely a citizen ....

Now, it gets turned into a HERO'S CONTEST or whatever, with all this talk of a PANTHEON of founding fathers and who should be in it, AND WHO SHOULD NOT ...

Soooo...

Yes ....

Let us put John Marshall INTO it ....

Let us say that he is really MORE than other Americans ....

Afterall, Wiki has him as a founding father, and we should never question Wiki, afterall .....

WHO DO YOU WANT TO THEN EXCLUDE?

Maybe we can negotiate and compromise here ....

Afterall, that is what politics in America is all about, compromising yourself ....

And so ...

Egalitarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) or Equalism is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.

Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large.

Moreover, research shows that lower inequality (i.e. high egalitarianism) is correlated with better environmental maintenance and a higher quality of life.

Minnesota, the most egalitarian state, ranked seventh in the country in the strength of its environmental policies, eleventh in environmental quality, and had the fourth lowest premature death rate.

By contrast, Mississippi, the most inegalitarian state, ranked 46th in environmental policy, 42nd in environmental quality, and 49th in its premature death rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism

Tall poppy syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tall Poppy Syndrome (TPS) is a pejorative term used in Australia, New Zealand and Canada to describe what is seen as a levelling social attitude.

Someone is said to be a target of tall poppy syndrome when his or her assumption of a higher economic, social, or political position is criticised as being presumptuous, attention seeking, or without merit.

Alternatively, it is seen as a societal phenomenon in which people of genuine merit are criticised or resented because their talents or achievements elevate them above or distinguish them from their peers.

Etymology

The term originates from accounts in Aristotle's Politics (Book 5, Chapter 10) and Livy's History of Rome, Book I.

Aristotle wrote:

"Periander advised Thrasybulus by cutting the tops of the tallest ears of corn, meaning that he must always put out of the way the citizens who overtop the rest."

In Livy's account, the tyrannical Roman King, Tarquin the Proud, received a messenger from his son Sextus Tarquinius asking what he should do next in Gabii, since he had become all-powerful there.

Rather than answering the messenger verbally, Tarquin went into his garden, took a stick, and symbolically swept it across his garden, thus cutting off the heads of the tallest poppies that were growing there.

The messenger, tired of waiting for an answer, returned to Gabii and told Sextus what he had seen.

Sextus realised that his father wished him to put to death all of the most eminent people of Gabii, which he then did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tall_poppy_syndrome

THE founding fathers never anticipated that there would be 2 parties with people who are not necessarily in tune with major issues
and that there would be internal battles in both parties for the soul of the world

after all, look at taz and me

you,livy mentioned on another thread, we were both rabid democrats
yet I disagree with taz on many,many issues, including what a liberal is suppose to be and I for one am NOT a bluedog dem, GOD FORBID anyone
call me that. (where is that vomit emoticon smilie?)

I also do not consider myself a rabid democrat, as I for one never was a fan of many democrats including those supposed ones like Harry Reid,
Nancy Pelosi and anyone at all with the name of Clinton for a last name. (I more consider Clinton Eastwood to be a person in tune with me, than
Bill or Hillary or Chelsea or even Socks the Cat Clinton.)

Hell, ever since Waco and Randy Weaver, democrats flucked up big time, and I wonder if the founding fathers would have shot Randy's son and wife
in the back like cowards or light the flame that killed all those kiddies at Waco. I seriously doubt that, not unless they had a good reason at least.

Most democrats these days would have shot the founding fathers and the people like Paul Revere (TERRORIST! TERRORIST!!!) before he gave his
midnight ride.(or at least the security cameras would have stopped him if Harry Reid didn't).

Liberalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Liberalism is a broad class of political philosophies that considers individual liberty and equality to be the most important political goals.

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity.

Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government.

All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.

According to author and philosophy professor Peter Vallentyne, "Liberalism comes in two broad forms."

"Classical liberalism emphasizes the importance of individual liberty and contemporary (or welfare) liberalism tends to emphasize some kind of material equality."

In Europe, the term "liberalism" is closer to the economic outlook of American economic conservatives.

According to Harry Girvetz and Minoque Kenneth "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook".

In the United States, "liberalism" is most often used in the sense of social liberalism, which supports some regulation of business and other economic interventionism which they believe to be in the public interest.

A philosophy holding a position in accordance with Adam Smith, that laissez-faire economics will bring about a spontaneous order or an invisible hand that benefits the society, is referred to as "classical liberalism."

Liberalism has its roots in the Age of Enlightenment and rejects many foundational assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, established religion, and economic protectionism.

Modern liberal thought originated in and influenced the politics of The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and France.

The first modern liberal state was the United States of America, founded on the principle that "all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

First of all, graham, I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek in that other thread ....

If I offended you, then let me first-off apologize to you right now ..

And it is interesting that you bring in the definition of LIBERAL just as I was over at Wikipedia checking it out for myself ....

As you can see from right above here, the definition is not at all concise ....

I myself would be an adherent of "Classical Liberalism" which emphasizes the importance of individual liberty ...

And then I equate that directly with REPUBLICANISM ....

And REPUBLICANISM in its turn sets rla's teeth on edge ....

And yet, I suspect that rla might say that he was an adherent of "Classical Liberalism", as well, although I will let him speak for himself on that subject ...

And I think that the "founding fathers" were very aware of FACTION, graham ....

Perhaps they did not think in terms of "party", but at the time of this nation's founding, and during the revolution, there were many different factions and they all made their voices known, to one extent or another ....

I think that the founding fathers were full of HOPE that FACTION could be overcome ....

But I also believe that they might have considered that to be a mere pipe dream ....

There is NO real new political philosophy today, graham ....

The ideas that we discuss in here between us go back in time over 2,500 years at least ....

And the founding fathers were very aware of these various political philosophies ....

John Adams could read both Latin and Greek, and he was able to translate Aristotle and Cicero and Livy into English ....

In actuality, after Cicero, these political ideas that went back to the Greeks five hundred years before Cicero were continually debated throughout Europe, and they form the basis for the system of thought that the founding fathers had inherited in their time ....

We who are in America today may well be one of the most ignorant generations of human beings to be on the face of the earth in the last 2500 years, in my estimation ....

Listening to people talk, you would think that the world was just invented this morning ...

And perhaps it was ...

And so ...

I think this demonstrates the relationship between liberal education and liberal (constitutional ) democracy.

As I have said in here on numerous occasions, the task before us, as a nation, is to learn how to integrate
democracy and merritocracy within the social system across all domains including the Political and the Economic
Domains...

If I knew how to make correction to wikki definitions I would change, "Indowed by their creator" to they have evolved the capacity to form social contracts to mutually guarantee each other their basic Human and Civil Rights...

Perhaps, as Livyjr says, there are no new political concepts today that haven't been considered before. What is different is that everyone (who wishes) is in the discussion today, whereas before, it was always limited to a very,
very small fraction of the population...

THERE IS THE POINT, rla ...

With this forum instantaneously connecting us across time, space and distance, we have as common people something that common people without a lot of economic power have never had access to before .....

This forum, for $7.95 a year per person, makes us very powerful, if we could only learn how to use it productively ....

And I guess you and I are exploring that concept in here, rla ....

To communicate effectively, we need to learn to speak a common language ....

And so ...

Yes, where X = 3 and Y = 2, X + Y = 5, whereas XY = 6 -- the power of interaction...