Chef Jim Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 It's not unfair, it's purposeful as a check and balance.It's there so the larger states cannot dictate to the smaller states how they will live; else there is no reason for smaller states to remain a part of the country, as they would have no say in how they are governed. See people like gator and Obama always think they know what's better for the country. They even know what's better than the founding fathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 See people like gator and Obama always think they know what's better for the country. They even know what's better than the founding fathers. #dudethatwaslikecenturiesago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 senators weren't originally directly elected by the constituency. as they represent the interests of the state that they each represent, they were originally appointed by state legislatures. Article I, section 3: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." that was changed by the 17th ammendment in 1913 due to too many senate seats sitting vacant due to contention within many of the state legislatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Which is why the House of Representatives is apportioned by population 1 Congresscritter representing 600k people vs 53 Congresscritters representing 38M people It still has to pass the undemocratic Senate...with 60 votes no less! So much for the will of the majority senators weren't originally directly elected by the constituency. as they represent the interests of the state that they each represent, they were originally appointed by state legislatures. Article I, section 3: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." that was changed by the 17th ammendment in 1913 due to too many senate seats sitting vacant due to contention within many of the state legislatures. That's not the reason it was changed. State legislators were a lot more easy to bribe than the electrorate of an entire state. Progressive reformers were fed up with the corrupt nature of the senate and finally had it made a little more democratic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 It still has to pass the undemocratic Senate...with 60 votes no less! So much for the will of the majority I guess he went with A)trying to defend stupidity with more stupidity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 It still has to pass the undemocratic Senate...with 60 votes no less! So much for the will of the majority The United States is a Republic, and it's government is not intended to subscribe to the whims of the majority. It was created as a Representitive Republic, and what you are complaining about are intended features rather than consequences of unforseen flaws. That's not the reason it was changed. State legislators were a lot more easy to bribe than the electrorate of an entire state. Progressive reformers were fed up with the corrupt nature of the senate and finally had it made a little more democratic http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm "This process seemed to work well until the mid-1850s. At that time, growing hostilities in various states resulted in vacant Senate seats. In Indiana, for example, the conflict between Democrats in the southern half of the state and the emerging Republican party in the northern half prevented the election of any candidate, thereby leaving the Senate seat vacant for two years. This marked the beginning of many contentious battles in state legislatures, as the struggle to elect senators reflected the increasing tensions over slavery and states' rights which led to the Civil War. After the Civil War, problems in senatorial elections by the state legislatures multiplied. In one case in the late 1860s, the election of Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton based his defense on the observation that not all states elected their senators in the same way, and presented a report that illustrated the inconsistency in state elections of senators. In response, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when senators were elected in each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections created by the Founders. The law helped but did not entirely solve the problem, and deadlocks in some legislatures continued to cause long vacancies in some Senate seats. Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years." The Senate's history of the Senate seems to disagree with you. While bribery is mentioned, it's problems were small in scope when compared to the larger problem of vacant seats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 It's not unfair, it's purposeful as a check and balance.It's there so the larger states cannot dictate to the smaller states how they will live; else there is no reason for smaller states to remain a part of the country, as they would have no say in how they are governed. Oh great, so a minority can just tell the majority how to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Oh great, so a minority can just tell the majority how to live. Umm? really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 (edited) Oh great, so a minority can just tell the majority how to live. Again, incorrect. The House of Representatives is a check on exactly that. Edited May 23, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Again, incorrect. The House of Representatives is a check on exactly that. Did gatorman just say he wants to take the power away from minorities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 The United States is a Republic, and it's government is not intended to subscribe to the whims of the majority. It was created as a Representitive Republic, and what you are complaining about are intended features rather than consequences of unforseen flaws. Yes, an anti-democratic, largely pro-slave holding majority, group of 17th Century men created a Constitution that really was great. It was a republic, fine. But it wasn't perfect. It does favor Conservative interests. I wish we had a Constitution that was more democratic, but I'll survive. I'm not one of crowd claiming we are living under a tyranny, right bro? And before any of the bottom feeders like Chef crawls out and says I want a direct democratic system, go f yourself Again, incorrect. The House of Representatives is a check on exactly that. Oh? But if the majority wants to pass a law that they feel is needed the Senate can't tell them no? It works both ways bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Yes, an anti-democratic, largely pro-slave holding majority, group of 17th Century men created a Constitution that really was great. It was a republic, fine. But it wasn't perfect. It does favor Conservative interests. I wish we had a Constitution that was more democratic, but I'll survive. I'm not one of crowd claiming we are living under a tyranny, right bro? And before any of the bottom feeders like Chef crawls out and says I want a direct democratic system, go f yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Did gatorman just say he wants to take the power away from minorities? Tom, your little idiot is running around with scissors again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Yes, an anti-democratic, largely pro-slave holding majority, group of 17th Century men created a Constitution that really was great. It was a republic, fine. But it wasn't perfect. It does favor Conservative interests. I wish we had a Constitution that was more democratic, but I'll survive. I'm not one of crowd claiming we are living under a tyranny, right bro? And before any of the bottom feeders like Chef crawls out and says I want a direct democratic system, go f yourself No I'm a top feeder. !@#$ the bottom..........bro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Yes, an anti-democratic, largely pro-slave holding majority, group of 17th Century men created a Constitution that really was great. It was a republic, fine. But it wasn't perfect. It does favor Conservative interests. I wish we had a Constitution that was more democratic, but I'll survive. I'm not one of crowd claiming we are living under a tyranny, right bro? And before any of the bottom feeders like Chef crawls out and says I want a direct democratic system, go f yourself Oh? But if the majority wants to pass a law that they feel is needed the Senate can't tell them no? It works both ways bro. First of all get the right century. Second, I think that in the past you have basically called for pure democracy. And lastly I would guess that nearly everyone here is a bottom feeder since you get chewed up so often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Yes, an anti-democratic, largely pro-slave holding majority, group of 17th Century men created a Constitution Relevance? that really was great. Agreed. It was a republic, fine. But it wasn't perfect. It does favor Conservative interests. I wish we had a Constitution that was more democratic, but I'll survive. It doesn't favor any particular set of interests because of it's systems of checks and balances, and it's ability to be amended. I'm not one of crowd claiming we are living under a tyranny, right bro? We certainly aren't living under the government intended in the Constitution, given structural Origionalism. And before any of the bottom feeders like Chef crawls out and says I want a direct democratic system, go f yourself Is this really necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Oh great, so a minority can just tell the majority how to live. Something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Did gatorman just say he wants to take the power away from minorities? He's such a good little statist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 Oh? But if the majority wants to pass a law that they feel is needed the Senate can't tell them no? It works both ways bro. The Senate is a check on large states dictating to small states. The House is a check on small states dictating to large states. The intended result is to strike a balance between the interests of both, ensuring that if any changes are to be made, that both groups agree to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 23, 2014 Share Posted May 23, 2014 The Senate is a check on large states dictating to small states. The House is a check on small states dictating to large states. Right, I understand that how it originally was thought up or explained but seriously, is California going to team up with Texas on some big state issue that hurts Wyoming? I think it was more along the lines of having a branch of the legislator that was not very close to the people. An upper house chosen by, for and from the vested interestes of the particular states. A check on "We the People" Exactly what Obama was getting at and Liberal reformers have complained about for over a century There were complaints about this at the time. Pennsylvania simply had a one house legislature that was like the house of reps. Again, not saying it was better, but people saw what was happening and what the purpose of a senate or upper house was for. Like the House of Lords in England. **thanks Third, I meant 18th century Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts