Do You Know Why The US Senate Was Created?

[320 Years of History]

You believe either the American political system, or the American governmental system or both, were created to be "a democratic system organized structurally to guarantee that the majority always wins.?"

I believe the designers of the American nation/government sought to ensure that rational decision making prevailed.

 

[320 Years of History]

Newer insights and propositions on what it all meant were put forward as scholars uncovered or rediscovered documents that shed a fuller light on what the founding generation thought, believed, and did in practice and how they themselves evolved or didn't, on some fundamental issues facing the new experiment they had initiated with the British colonial revolt.

That's all well and good. Simply stating that we've uncovered ideas of Madison that weren't earlier known/understood doesn't give me any specific thoughts to consider with regard to your comments and/or ideas.

Tell me which of Madison's ideas in particular and that shifted, or that were reinterpreted, over time be the ones you view as relevant to what I wrote and that connect to something you have in mind to say. I can't read your mind and I'm certainly not going to dig through everything Madison wrote and all that's been written about him and his ideas looking for the few specific passages that you may have in mind.

 

[Dante]

You believe either the American political system, or the American governmental system or both, were created to be "a democratic system organized structurally to guarantee that the majority always wins.?"

I believe the designers of the American nation/government sought to ensure that rational decision making prevailed.

and they disagreed on what was rational.

What you are missing is that most of them went against their very own deeply held principles for one reason. They did not wanted to see the experiment fail at the cost of principles. This is explained in letters they all wrote to each other through the years

 

[Dante]

I can't read your mind and I'm certainly not going to dig through everything Madison wrote and all that's been written about him and his ideas looking for the few specific passages that you may have in mind.

well you certainly have copied and posted many things.

 

[Dante]

[... ... ...

Maybe I am in error here, and if so I apologize, but you appear to be coming from some libertarian angle.

 

[320 Years of History]

[... ... ...

Maybe I am in error here, and if so I apologize, but you appear to be coming from some libertarian angle.

The only angle from which I'm coming is that which I think makes sense and which I have considered. Politically, I'm an Independent. I pay no attention to what party mantra or doctrine aligns with the thoughts I share. Sometimes I know what party espouses ideas that I do; other times I have no idea of which party will cotton to the same concepts. Similarly, I at times learn that a given party favors something and I decide I favor it as well; however, the party that the idea is associated with has no bearing on how I'll conclude on the matter.

 

[Dante]

Maybe I am in error here, and if so I apologize, but you appear to be coming from some libertarian angle.

The only angle from which I'm coming is that which I think makes sense and which I have considered. Politically, I'm an Independent. I pay no attention to what party mantra or doctrine aligns with the thoughts I share. Sometimes I know what party espouses ideas that I do; other times I have no idea of which party will cotton to the same concepts.

Similarly, I at times learn that a given party favors something and I decide I favor it as well; however, the party that the idea is associated with has no bearing on how I'll conclude on the matter.

Okay.

 

[longknife]

Remember, the Founder created a unique form of government unlike any formed before. They did not want a sovereign or a bunch of life-long minor royals. They were leery of allowing the populace to control government and set up checks and balances to ensure no one branch of government ruled over the others.

 

[Dante]

Remember, the Founder created a unique form of government unlike any formed before. They did not want a sovereign or a bunch of life-long minor royals. They were leery of allowing the populace to control government and set up checks and balances to ensure no one branch of government ruled over the others.

I agree somewhat. The founding generation wanted to substitute a 'royal' sovereign in the person of the King/Queen with a sovereignty of a people. They set up a government divided, so as 'to ensure no one branch of government ruled over the others.' I would suggest the 'checks and balances' are a system of the actual governing. One could have checks and balances without having a divided government

 

[KokomoJojo]

Do You Know Why The US Senate Was Created? The indented quote(s), below in this post set things in motion. The quote(s) in this thread are not intended to embarrass or humiliate only to give context to an interesting observation: many people here and elsewhere have their own ideas on things that just don't measure up to what is on the record.

These RWnuts think democracy is mob rule, and claim that's why they don't want it. The mob they refer to, of course,

is defined as 'people who don't vote Republican'.

btw, this democracy/mob rule thing? Greece is the usual historical reference when talking about direct democracy.

Fact is, somewhere around only 10% or so of Greece's population had the right to vote. Far from the 'mob'.

Mob rule is the control by a simple majority whether it be Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.

50% plus 1 is not the true will of the people in a direct Democracy, which is why the Senate was created in the first place.

A Republic is a nation of laws, just as a Democracy is a nation of laws. It's just under our system a temporary ideology doesn't rule the whole dang thing. It has checks that were designed to ensure that no one party can hold on to power for very long at all...........meaning both sides must meet in the middle to determine the path.

In a nut shell, both sides are right and wrong on issues in my opinion. Both sides have good and bad points. Our Republic was designed to hammer it out to an agreement in the middle.

representative democracy is indirect democracy. we are a representative democracy with elements of direct democracy such as ballot initiatives. The US Senate is how we use representative democracy and it was NOT created for the purpose(s) you state.


We are a liberal republic which means we all share a liberal ideology.. Forms of liberalism give us American liberals and conservatism

We do NOT have checks on power in order to ensure one party does not hold power long. We have checks on government power as in the branches of government.

Our Republic had nothing to do with hammering out things in the middle. Good gawd man. wtf?

So, do you know why the US Senate was created and how it is supposed to work and also keep things in check?

Spare me your I'm better posting here............with your sarcastic reply.

The Senate was created to be the voice of the State Legislatures.

The Senate was created to give an equal voice in Gov't to every State. Each State to gets 2 Senators regardless of population.

The Senate was created to be the COOLER if you read the Federalist papers. Slowing down things from the House to ensure a new bill proposed isn't just a recent burst of political activism.

The Senate terms were longer because of ongoing Trade Agreements and Treaties to foreign countries..........

And so on.

So, what's your major malfunction with my post again.................

This is what we were taught in 8th Grade US History, 12th Grade Civics, and College US History as well.

Good summary.

so you are well indoctrinated and never cracked a book since because you have a piece of paper that says you are smart now right?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Remember, the Founder created a unique form of government unlike any formed before. They did not want a sovereign or a bunch of life-long minor royals. They were leery of allowing the populace to control government and set up checks and balances to ensure no one branch of government ruled over the others.

what a crock of shit, the whole damn thing was nothing more than a copy paste job with a few twists that converted it from a 'direct' monarchy to an indirect franchise.

 

[KokomoJojo]

since I am bored here is a little something for peeps to research.
First I can post statutes created at the time of the constitution that all lands are allodial which means you pay no taxes on it what so ever to anyone for any reason and no one has a higher or more perfect title in law than the owner does.

That said:

In Jolly ole England:
The king is the sovereign, representing the state, which owns the soil and sells tenancy as land and tenements to its vassals acknowledged by an ownership entitlement called fee simple which means 'in feud'.

In Land of the Free America:
The State [acting as king] is the sovereign, representing the ruling class mob as the state, which owns the soil and sells tenancy as land and tenements to its vassals acknowledged by an ownership entitlement called fee simple which means 'in feud'.

same result, only the words have been changed to protect the guilty

yet it never occurs to anyone they just may have been lied to not in fact but in the manner in which it is presented in american schools.

note quite, but not bad. You do not push the myths, though you do push a conspiratorial and paranoid view

So what are you saying, lets pretend the king was honest joe, where the kings and today the judicial and legislative branches are doing everything in the colluded power to defeat and beat the constitution slice by slice is not 100% above board good guys?

 

[KokomoJojo]

Remember, the Founder created a unique form of government unlike any formed before. They did not want a sovereign or a bunch of life-long minor royals. They were leery of allowing the populace to control government and set up checks and balances to ensure no one branch of government ruled over the others.

I agree somewhat. The founding generation wanted to substitute a 'royal' sovereign in the person of the King/Queen with a sovereignty of a people. They set up a government divided, so as 'to ensure no one branch of government ruled over the others.' I would suggest the 'checks and balances' are a system of the actual governing. One could have checks and balances without having a divided government

There was no founding, there are no checks and balances, any more than walmart departments, personnel, the board, and the ceo.

They shut down everyones brain through their presumed schools of authority and sold you puppy chow and kool aid

All you got is corporate reconstruction.

 

[KokomoJojo]

The U.S. Senate was created, like so many of the provisions in the Constitution, to establish balance. The founders sought to achieve two main objectives in the creation of the U.S. Senate.

• to establish a more (more than the "lower" House) deliberative legislative body, comprised of more experienced individuals, that would necessarily be less susceptible to the whims of populism. (so much for the people) This objective is seen in the higher age requirement stipulated for U.S. Senators.
• to establish a legislative body that gives an equal say/vote to minority and majority interests, (really, and which amendment did you get to vote on?) most notably the minority defined as less populous states which necessarily will have more votes in the House of Representatives, and thus more power.

• To protect the rights of individual states (nope dont see the word individual people in there, only the club name) and safeguard minority opinion (yep whine as much as you like) in a system of government designed expressly to give greater power to the national government. (...During the "Articles" years having learned the lessons of a crafting a weak central government, the Framers essentially said, "Been there; done that...We don't like how that works. Let's start over and create a nation having a strong central government.") (yes a kingdom)
  
• To be an independent body of responsible citizens (lying cheating scum bar attorneys) who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate's role was "first to protect the people against their rulers (and you believe that, despite all the court rulings that they have no obligation to protect you? really?)[and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led."
  • To guarantee senators' independence from short-term political pressures, the framers (corporate reconstructionists) designed a six-year Senate term, three times as long as that of popularly elected members of the House of Representatives. Madison reasoned that longer terms would provide stability. "If it not be a firm body," he concluded, "the other branch being more numerous, and coming immediately from the people, will overwhelm it." Responding to fears that a six-year Senate term would produce an unreachable aristocracy in the Senate, the framers specified that one-third of the members' terms would expire every two years, leaving two-thirds of the members in office. This combined the principles of continuity and rotation in office. (and that didnt work either)

 

[Dante]

"So what you are saying..." KokomoJojo

seriously

 

[Dante]

Remember, the Founder created a unique form of government unlike any formed before. They did not want a sovereign or a bunch of life-long minor royals. They were leery of allowing the populace to control government and set up checks and balances to ensure no one branch of government ruled over the others.

what a crock of shit, the whole damn thing was nothing more than a copy paste job with a few twists that converted it from a 'direct' monarchy to an indirect franchise.

you're 'shitty' opinion is noted. And with your expertise on things shitty, I bow to you

 

[Dante]

There was no founding, there are no checks and balances, any more than walmart departments, personnel, the board, and the ceo.

They shut down everyones brain through their presumed schools of authority and sold you puppy chow and kool aid

All you got is corporate reconstruction.

you're trolling the thread and spamming it with nonsense.

you will offer no serious discussion and will get none in return.

good bye

 

[Dante]

There was no founding, there are no checks and balances, any more than walmart departments, personnel, the board, and the ceo.

They shut down everyones brain through their presumed schools of authority and sold you puppy chow and kool aid

All you got is corporate reconstruction.

you're trolling the thread and spamming it with nonsense.

you will offer no serious discussion and will get none in return.

good bye

Very simple, we have what is known in law as

same response

 

[KokomoJojo]

"So what you are saying..." KokomoJojo

seriously

that people bought the sales pitch, not reality

 

[KokomoJojo]

There was no founding, there are no checks and balances, any more than walmart departments, personnel, the board, and the ceo.

They shut down everyones brain through their presumed schools of authority and sold you puppy chow and kool aid

All you got is corporate reconstruction.

you're trolling the thread and spamming it with nonsense.

you will offer no serious discussion and will get none in return.

good bye

Dante's definition of serious: 'status quo'

you really serve no constructive purpose putting me down because I talk about legal aspects outside your circle of knowledge