Is the senate a fair form of Governing?

[Staidhup]

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.

The only problem we have is that the federal government has overstepped its constitutional powers and infringed upon the power of the states. FDR started this movement and now it will be up to the next generation to correct.

 

[Dante]

The only problem we have is that the federal government has overstepped its constitutional powers and infringed upon the power of the states. FDR started this movement and now it will be up to the next generation to correct.

tell it to the Judge.

 

[M14 Shooter]

using a new term, is a sign of what?

What new term? My first post:

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

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.

My message is perfectly consistent; your reduction to petulant pendantry only denotes your inability to effectively assault that position.

Ultimately, the states hold soverignty over the federal governmet; it is impossible for you to argue otherwise.

 

[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?

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

False.

 

[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.

False.

Incorrect.
As noted before, the states can dissolve the federal govrnment, with the federal government having no legal way to stop them.
The reverse is not true.
Thus, the states ultimately hold soverign power. No way to soundly argue otherwise.

 

[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.

Incorrect.
As noted before, the states can dissolve the federal govrnment, with the federal government having no legal way to stop them.
The reverse is not true.
Thus, the states ultimately hold soverign power. No way to soundly argue otherwise.

But they do not enjoy total sovereign control of their selves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

False.

Incorrect.
As noted before, the states can dissolve the federal govrnment, with the federal government having no legal way to stop them.
The reverse is not true.
Thus, the states ultimately hold soverign power. No way to soundly argue otherwise.

But they do not enjoy total sovereign control of their selves.

That does not in any way negate what I said.

 

[ThinkCritically]

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.

Incorrect.
As noted before, the states can dissolve the federal govrnment, with the federal government having no legal way to stop them.
The reverse is not true.
Thus, the states ultimately hold soverign power. No way to soundly argue otherwise.

Did South Carolina have sovereign power when they tried to succeed from the union?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be. Therefore it is a skewed system of representational democracy when say senators from Rhode Island and Alaska have the same representational power as senators form California, Texas, Ohio, and New York.

I'm up in the air about the issue, but please give me your thoughts.

What makes you think that the government is supposed to be fair?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

It is interesting that people think that abolishing the 17th Amendment will change anything. If you actually go look at history you will see that most states were well on their way to direct election of Senators before the 17th was ratified. It wouldn't have passed if there was not a lot of support for it in the first place.

 

[ThinkCritically]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be. Therefore it is a skewed system of representational democracy when say senators from Rhode Island and Alaska have the same representational power as senators form California, Texas, Ohio, and New York.

I'm up in the air about the issue, but please give me your thoughts.

What makes you think that the government is supposed to be fair?

I know life isn't fair, but give me your thoughts on the OP.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be. Therefore it is a skewed system of representational democracy when say senators from Rhode Island and Alaska have the same representational power as senators form California, Texas, Ohio, and New York.

I'm up in the air about the issue, but please give me your thoughts.

States have the same ‘rights’ now as they’ve always had. And they are no more or less ‘sovereign,’ either.

Conservatives incorrectly infer states have ‘lost’ rights when in fact states are simply compelled to abide the 14th Amendment, and are no longer allowed to violate the civil liberties of their citizens.

Otherwise, the problem with the Senate isn’t design, it’s execution.

If only it actually worked that way in the real world. Unfortunately, we have several Supreme Court decisions that essentially nullified the 14th Amendment.

Funny how a wannabe lawyer type always forgets about them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be. Therefore it is a skewed system of representational democracy when say senators from Rhode Island and Alaska have the same representational power as senators form California, Texas, Ohio, and New York.

I'm up in the air about the issue, but please give me your thoughts.

What makes you think that the government is supposed to be fair?

I know life isn't fair, but give me your thoughts on the OP.

That is my thoughts on the OP. The drafters of the Constitution of the United States specifically designed a legislative government that would do two things that contradicted each other. They designed the House to give each individual in the country an equal voice in what their government could, and could not, do. They then designed the Senate to give each state the same equal voice. The conflict was deliberate, because they wanted to make sure that no single state would have more power than any other state, yet they also wanted to make sure that small groups of people could never control the country.

Since this is deliberate, and it is obviously unfair, I am left to wonder one thing, what makes you think the government is supposed to be fair?

You obviously want to learn to think about things beyond what you are learning in school and from your own life experiences. Thin about it, why would they design a government that is not fair? What are the advantages of a government that is forced to treat everyone as an individual while simultaneously forced to treat each state as equals even when some states have more individuals than others. This is something I figured out in my high school civics class, but was not able to explain for another 20 years, so you don't have to answer, just think.

 

[ThinkCritically]

What makes you think that the government is supposed to be fair?

I know life isn't fair, but give me your thoughts on the OP.

That is my thoughts on the OP. The drafters of the Constitution of the United States specifically designed a legislative government that would do two things that contradicted each other. They designed the House to give each individual in the country an equal voice in what their government could, and could not, do. They then designed the Senate to give each state the same equal voice. The conflict was deliberate, because they wanted to make sure that no single state would have more power than any other state, yet they also wanted to make sure that small groups of people could never control the country.

Since this is deliberate, and it is obviously unfair, I am left to wonder one thing, what makes you think the government is supposed to be fair?

You obviously want to learn to think about things beyond what you are learning in school and from your own life experiences. Thin about it, why would they design a government that is not fair? What are the advantages of a government that is forced to treat everyone as an individual while simultaneously forced to treat each state as equals even when some states have more individuals than others. This is something I figured out in my high school civics class, but was not able to explain for another 20 years, so you don't have to answer, just think.

Well, you can right out and said what I was thinking all along. Which begs the question....Why do we still have a senate?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I know life isn't fair, but give me your thoughts on the OP.

That is my thoughts on the OP. The drafters of the Constitution of the United States specifically designed a legislative government that would do two things that contradicted each other. They designed the House to give each individual in the country an equal voice in what their government could, and could not, do. They then designed the Senate to give each state the same equal voice. The conflict was deliberate, because they wanted to make sure that no single state would have more power than any other state, yet they also wanted to make sure that small groups of people could never control the country.

Since this is deliberate, and it is obviously unfair, I am left to wonder one thing, what makes you think the government is supposed to be fair?

You obviously want to learn to think about things beyond what you are learning in school and from your own life experiences. Thin about it, why would they design a government that is not fair? What are the advantages of a government that is forced to treat everyone as an individual while simultaneously forced to treat each state as equals even when some states have more individuals than others. This is something I figured out in my high school civics class, but was not able to explain for another 20 years, so you don't have to answer, just think.

Well, you can right out and said what I was thinking all along. Which begs the question....Why do we still have a senate?

To make it harder to pass laws.

 

[saveliberty]

When states had more rights it made more sense, but now states aren't really as sovereign in nature as they used to be. Therefore it is a skewed system of representational democracy when say senators from Rhode Island and Alaska have the same representational power as senators form California, Texas, Ohio, and New York.

I'm up in the air about the issue, but please give me your thoughts.

So because the federal governement has over stepped their bounds, we should encourage further incursions into unconstitutional activity? That is basically what you suggest.

 

[saveliberty]

The Senate still performs its purposes quite well. Perhaps you have just forgot what those purposes are:

1. To make sure all states have an equal say in a chamber.
2. To provide a less political legislative body with longer terms.
3. To maintain the republic and operate as a check to the House's more democratic nature.

 

[ThinkCritically]

The Senate still performs its purposes quite well. Perhaps you have just forgot what those purposes are:

1. To make sure all states have an equal say in a chamber.
2. To provide a less political legislative body with longer terms.
3. To maintain the republic and operate as a check to the House's more democratic nature.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should get rid of the Senate, but for the sake of argument I am pointing out some problems of the Senate that I can't help but notice.

To respond to your points.
1) I agree.
2) I'm not sure if that plays out in reality
3) I've heard this before, that the senate leans republican. I don't think that is what the founders had in mind when they established the senate.

 

[saveliberty]

The Senate still performs its purposes quite well. Perhaps you have just forgot what those purposes are:

1. To make sure all states have an equal say in a chamber.
2. To provide a less political legislative body with longer terms.
3. To maintain the republic and operate as a check to the House's more democratic nature.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying we should get rid of the Senate, but for the sake of argument I am pointing out some problems of the Senate that I can't help but notice.

To respond to your points.
1) I agree.
2) I'm not sure if that plays out in reality
3) I've heard this before, that the senate leans republican. I don't think that is what the founders had in mind when they established the senate.

2. Of course it is true. They don't have to constanty be in reelection mode.
3. I said the republic, not republican. How good are you at history? The Republican party was not even in existence at the time of the Constitution's birth. If you can't understand the terms, you certainly can't understand the subject.

 

[ThinkCritically]

sorry i miss read point 3 there