Is the senate a fair form of Governing?

[M14 Shooter]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be.

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Never forget that the US is a group of 50 states, not one state with 50 divisions.

your opinion(s) are flawed. The States gave up some sovereignty. They are NOT as sovereign as they were before. Sovereign states could opt out, the states cannot opt out. We fought that battle before.

The states can disband the federal government, with the federal government having no legal means to stop them.
The reverse is not true.
Thus, sovereignty ultimately lies with the states.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unless we're going to repeal the 17th Amendment, which is highly unlikely, we may as well abolish the Senate as it no longer serves the purpose for which it was created.

please ignore the ignorance of the above poster.

of course most sane people know the US Constitution gave the power to amend, so all amendments advance or take the place of original purpose. It is impossible to say because a clause has been amended it is no longer addresses an issue.

The Senate is part of: Bicameralism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US Senate was created in order to serve as a part of a mixed government. How the Senate is elected or how it's rules change, does not negate the original purpose for it's creation.

Actually, it does and you're the one showing your ignorance, Dainty. The Senate was created to be the states' place at the table. It was a check on the federal government to prevent it from becoming too powerful. If the Senate was still appointed by the governors and state legislatures today then all of these unfunded mandates they complain about like NCLB, ObamaCare, Real ID, etc would never have seen the light of the day. Additionally, the federal government would not be able to extort states, using their own money, into passing a 21 year old drinking age minimum, nuisance seat belt laws, and the former 55 MPH nationwide speed limit.

When we passed the 17th Amendment we shattered the balance of federalism and we are paying for it today with an ever encroaching federal government forcing states into submitting to its will with the aid of an activist judiciary.

gymnastics? wow you offer pathetic argument(s) with no reasoning? you are talking out of your ass

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Never forget that the US is a group of 50 states, not one state with 50 divisions.

your opinion(s) are flawed. The States gave up some sovereignty. They are NOT as sovereign as they were before. Sovereign states could opt out, the states cannot opt out. We fought that battle before.

The states can disband the federal government, with the federal government having no legal means to stop them.
The reverse is not true.
Thus, sovereignty ultimately lies with the states.

your words: "The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be..."

to repeat: They are NOT as sovereign as they were before.

methinks you confuse 'the people' with 'the states'

 

[M14 Shooter]

your opinion(s) are flawed. The States gave up some sovereignty. They are NOT as sovereign as they were before. Sovereign states could opt out, the states cannot opt out. We fought that battle before.

The states can disband the federal government, with the federal government having no legal means to stop them.
The reverse is not true.
Thus, sovereignty ultimately lies with the states.

your words: "The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be..."
to repeat: They are NOT as sovereign as they were before.

They are, as noted above. Nothing has diminished this.

methinks you confuse 'the people' with 'the states'

Methinks you refuse to understand the argument presented to you.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Methinks you refuse to understand the argument presented to you.

your opinion(s) are flawed. The States gave up some sovereignty. They are NOT as sovereign as they were before. Sovereign states could opt out, the states cannot opt out. We fought that battle before.

---
"The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the Government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national: in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national."

Federal v. Consolidated Government: James Madison, Federalist, no. 39, 253--57


"The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to create a federal system that promotes strong national power in certain spheres, yet recognizes that the states are sovereign in other spheres. In "Federalist No. 46," James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28," suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." However, it soon became clear that Hamilton and Madison had different ideas about how the national government should work in practice. Hamilton, along with other "federalists" including Washington, Adams, and Marshall, sought to implement an expansive interpretation of national powers at the states' expense. Madison, along with other "states' rights" advocates including Thomas Jefferson, sought to bolster state powers."

3. Federalism: U.S. v. The States, Topic Overview

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

let me use Antonin ::: Scalia refers to the “dual sovereignty” established by the U.S. Constitution that federalism is built upon.

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dual sovereignty would mean the states gave up some sovereignty -- unless of course you want to argue that sharing or giving up something does not dilute what was once a single duty/responsibility/power but is now shared

 

[M14 Shooter]

Methinks you refuse to understand the argument presented to you.

your opinion(s) are flawed. The States gave up some sovereignty. They are NOT as sovereign as they were before. Sovereign states could opt out, the states cannot opt out. We fought that battle before.

Repeating yourself only indicates you have no effective response.
Please feel free to show how my position that the states retain ultimate sovereignty is unsound.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Methinks you refuse to understand the argument presented to you.

your opinion(s) are flawed. The States gave up some sovereignty. They are NOT as sovereign as they were before. Sovereign states could opt out, the states cannot opt out. We fought that battle before.

Repeating yourself only indicates you have no effective response.
Please feel free to show how my position that the states retain ultimate sovereignty is unsound.

using a new term, is a sign of what?

but okay,
ultimate sovereignty? over what?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

lesson for the likes of M-14 and other idiots @ USMB:

The framers of the US Constitution made a decision to ask the 'people' of the states to ratify the document because it was anathema to have state governments rule on a new government. So the state governments, State Legislators/Executives/Courts did not vote on ratifying the US Constitution...the 'people' of the states did through debate and representation.

Madison wrote that when looking to the meaning of the Constitution to look to the ratifiers and not the framers.

cool, eh?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Best thing we ever did was to make Senators appeal to we the people to get elected. Selecting Senators in back room deals is ripe with corruption

If you think you can convince the American people to give up their right to elect Senators you are sadly mistaken

I agree. Before direct election Senator's seats were often just sold. And recent Illinois experience points out that the same would happen today if Senators were not directly elected.

They're still sold.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Best thing we ever did was to make Senators appeal to we the people to get elected. Selecting Senators in back room deals is ripe with corruption

If you think you can convince the American people to give up their right to elect Senators you are sadly mistaken

I agree. Before direct election Senator's seats were often just sold. And recent Illinois experience points out that the same would happen today if Senators were not directly elected.

They're still sold.

tell that to all the millionaires who outspent opponents by vast sums for Senate seats they lost. start with Huffington's gay husband.

 

[M14 Shooter]

your opinion(s) are flawed. The States gave up some sovereignty. They are NOT as sovereign as they were before. Sovereign states could opt out, the states cannot opt out. We fought that battle before.

Repeating yourself only indicates you have no effective response.
Please feel free to show how my position that the states retain ultimate sovereignty is unsound.

using a new term, is a sign of what?

What new term? My first post:

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Thus, ultimate sovereignty.
Have you not been paying attention?

but okay,
ultimate sovereignty? over what?

Question asked, question answered.
See above.

Now then:
Please feel free to show how my position that the states retain ultimate sovereignty is unsound

 

[M14 Shooter]

lesson for the likes of M-14 and other idiots @ USMB:

The framers of the US Constitution made a decision to ask the 'people' of the states to ratify the document because it was anathema to have state governments rule on a new government. So the state governments, State Legislators/Executives/Courts did not vote on ratifying the US Constitution...the 'people' of the states did through debate and representation.

Madison wrote that when looking to the meaning of the Constitution to look to the ratifiers and not the framers.

cool, eh?

So... you passed your 8th grade US history class.

Relevance?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Repeating yourself only indicates you have no effective response.
Please feel free to show how my position that the states retain ultimate sovereignty is unsound.

using a new term, is a sign of what?

What new term? My first post:

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Thus, ultimate sovereignty.
Have you not been paying attention?

but okay,
ultimate sovereignty? over what?

Question asked, question answered.
See above.

Now then:
Please feel free to show how my position that the states retain ultimate sovereignty is unsound

The fact that you cannot keep a consistent message is not to be something you should highlight as if it is a plus.

here is your post that I commented upon:

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be.

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Never forget that the US is a group of 50 states, not one state with 50 divisions.

I was not commenting on the OP, although my suggestion that you used a new term was muddled. Your new term was what I commented upon:

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be.

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Never forget that the US is a group of 50 states, not one state with 50 divisions.

your opinion(s) are flawed. The States gave up some sovereignty. They are NOT as sovereign as they were before. Sovereign states could opt out, the states cannot opt out. We fought that battle before.

---
"The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the Government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national: in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national."

Federal v. Consolidated Government: James Madison, Federalist, no. 39, 253--57


"The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to create a federal system that promotes strong national power in certain spheres, yet recognizes that the states are sovereign in other spheres. In "Federalist No. 46," James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28," suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." However, it soon became clear that Hamilton and Madison had different ideas about how the national government should work in practice. Hamilton, along with other "federalists" including Washington, Adams, and Marshall, sought to implement an expansive interpretation of national powers at the states' expense. Madison, along with other "states' rights" advocates including Thomas Jefferson, sought to bolster state powers."

3. Federalism: U.S. v. The States, Topic Overview

let me use Antonin ::: Scalia refers to the “dual sovereignty” established by the U.S. Constitution that federalism is built upon.

Printz v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dual sovereignty would mean the states gave up some sovereignty -- unless of course you want to argue that sharing or giving up something does not dilute what was once a single duty/responsibility/power but is now shared

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

lesson for the likes of M-14 and other idiots @ USMB:

The framers of the US Constitution made a decision to ask the 'people' of the states to ratify the document because it was anathema to have state governments rule on a new government. So the state governments, State Legislators/Executives/Courts did not vote on ratifying the US Constitution...the 'people' of the states did through debate and representation.

Madison wrote that when looking to the meaning of the Constitution to look to the ratifiers and not the framers.

cool, eh?

So... you passed your 8th grade US history class.

Relevance?

most people including you are speaking of the states when the true term would be the 'people' the 'ratifiers '

you evidently did not pass 8th grade US History, or any other grade after that

 

[hortysir]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be.

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Never forget that the US is a group of 50 states, not one state with 50 divisions.

False.

 

[hortysir]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be.

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Never forget that the US is a group of 50 states, not one state with 50 divisions.

your opinion(s) are flawed. The States gave up some sovereignty. They are NOT as sovereign as they were before. Sovereign states could opt out, the states cannot opt out. We fought that battle before.

---
"The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the Government are drawn, it is partly federal, and partly national: in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national."

Federal v. Consolidated Government: James Madison, Federalist, no. 39, 253--57


"The framers of the U.S. Constitution sought to create a federal system that promotes strong national power in certain spheres, yet recognizes that the states are sovereign in other spheres. In "Federalist No. 46," James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28," suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress." However, it soon became clear that Hamilton and Madison had different ideas about how the national government should work in practice. Hamilton, along with other "federalists" including Washington, Adams, and Marshall, sought to implement an expansive interpretation of national powers at the states' expense. Madison, along with other "states' rights" advocates including Thomas Jefferson, sought to bolster state powers."

3. Federalism: U.S. v. The States, Topic Overview

Thanks.

I replied too soon

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be.

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Never forget that the US is a group of 50 states, not one state with 50 divisions.

False.

 

[hortysir]

The states are every bit as sovereign now as they used to be, and, ultimately, hold sovereign power over the federal government.

Never forget that the US is a group of 50 states, not one state with 50 divisions.

False.

While I agree that the states aren't as sovereign as they used to be doesn't mean that they shouldn't be

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

False.

While I agree that the states aren't as sovereign as they used to be doesn't mean that they shouldn't be

ha!