Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Foxfyre]

I can be for or against tyrannies of any kind or express my opinions about majority or minority views until the cows come home without violating my own rules in any way. What I can't do is tell you want you think or want or assign motive to what you post on whatever topic.

You can ask a member to clarify his/her reasoning for this or that statement, but you can't assume what he meant by making the statement.

You can say conservatives support smaller government and more self governance as opposed to liberals who tend to support big government solutions and more rules and regulations for the people. That is neither insulting or ad hominem on the face of it. Nor would be an objective rebuttal to that point of view if you objected to it. But if you say conservatives selfishly support. . . or liberals foolishly support. . . .that is insulting and ad hominem and would violate the rules of this thread.

Focus on the argument and leave the member or the motives of the group making the argument strictly out of it, and you are good to go on this thread.

The opposing force to tyranny of the majority is liberty. Liberty for all includes liberty for those in a minority as opposed to liberty only for the majority. Liberty is not tyranny of the minority. That is a meme espoused by authoritarians who believe that liberty is the liberty to take liberty away from those minority groups that they don't like.

I have no idea what you mean by that, but unless you figure out how to relate it to the OP, it is probably more suitable for a separate discussion in a different thread.

I'm sorry I thought you said "I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else."

I was defending a previous statement with that line. Context is everything.

But the fact is a tiny minority of five SCOTUS justices, people who may not give a damn about the Constitution or existing law or individual or collective liberties, can have authority to make whatever opinion they wish that could restrict the liberties of anybody. And SCOTUS has been allowed to declare what will be the uncontested law of the land which gives it unlimited power in a way that the Founders never intended that it would have.

Likewise a tiny minority of bureaucrats can write rules and regulations that are given force of law and can be imposed to grant special privileges or restrict freedoms. And this will be done without any representation of our interests whatsoever.

Whatever issues with Michelsen's proposed amendment any of us might have, it would go a long way to correct this situation.

Ok.. so we are deflecting / moving the goal posts to the SCOTUS. I disagree, the SCOTUS does not have unlimited power. For example, if congress does not like us having liberty to get married, they can take it away with an amendment. See 16th amendment as an example of taking liberty away from the people. But they do not have unlimited power either. A super majority of the states have to approve.

I am not deflecting anything. I am discussing the thread topic. But please make an argument for why SCOTUS cannot make any ruling it chooses to make? Who has the authority to tell them they cannot?

 

[RKMBrown]

The opposing force to tyranny of the majority is liberty. Liberty for all includes liberty for those in a minority as opposed to liberty only for the majority. Liberty is not tyranny of the minority. That is a meme espoused by authoritarians who believe that liberty is the liberty to take liberty away from those minority groups that they don't like.

I have no idea what you mean by that, but unless you figure out how to relate it to the OP, it is probably more suitable for a separate discussion in a different thread.

I'm sorry I thought you said "I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else."

I was defending a previous statement with that line. Context is everything.

But the fact is a tiny minority of five SCOTUS justices, people who may not give a damn about the Constitution or existing law or individual or collective liberties, can have authority to make whatever opinion they wish that could restrict the liberties of anybody. And SCOTUS has been allowed to declare what will be the uncontested law of the land which gives it unlimited power in a way that the Founders never intended that it would have.

Likewise a tiny minority of bureaucrats can write rules and regulations that are given force of law and can be imposed to grant special privileges or restrict freedoms. And this will be done without any representation of our interests whatsoever.

Whatever issues with Michelsen's proposed amendment any of us might have, it would go a long way to correct this situation.

Ok.. so we are deflecting / moving the goal posts to the SCOTUS. I disagree, the SCOTUS does not have unlimited power. For example, if congress does not like us having liberty to get married, they can take it away with an amendment. See 16th amendment as an example of taking liberty away from the people. But they do not have unlimited power either. A super majority of the states have to approve.

I am not deflecting anything. I am discussing the thread topic. But please make an argument for why SCOTUS cannot make any ruling it chooses to make? Who has the authority to tell them they cannot?

Why would anyone be so stupid so as to make an argument that the "SCOTUS cannot make any ruling it chooses to make?" Clearly they can and do make decisions all the time. That's what Judges do. They judge and decide. Why are you asking who has such authority so as to do this unknown act that stops the SCOTUS from making a ruling? What is the point of your deflection to this new area of discussion?

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no idea what you mean by that, but unless you figure out how to relate it to the OP, it is probably more suitable for a separate discussion in a different thread.

I'm sorry I thought you said "I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else."

I was defending a previous statement with that line. Context is everything.

But the fact is a tiny minority of five SCOTUS justices, people who may not give a damn about the Constitution or existing law or individual or collective liberties, can have authority to make whatever opinion they wish that could restrict the liberties of anybody. And SCOTUS has been allowed to declare what will be the uncontested law of the land which gives it unlimited power in a way that the Founders never intended that it would have.

Likewise a tiny minority of bureaucrats can write rules and regulations that are given force of law and can be imposed to grant special privileges or restrict freedoms. And this will be done without any representation of our interests whatsoever.

Whatever issues with Michelsen's proposed amendment any of us might have, it would go a long way to correct this situation.

Ok.. so we are deflecting / moving the goal posts to the SCOTUS. I disagree, the SCOTUS does not have unlimited power. For example, if congress does not like us having liberty to get married, they can take it away with an amendment. See 16th amendment as an example of taking liberty away from the people. But they do not have unlimited power either. A super majority of the states have to approve.

I am not deflecting anything. I am discussing the thread topic. But please make an argument for why SCOTUS cannot make any ruling it chooses to make? Who has the authority to tell them they cannot?

Why would anyone be so stupid so as to make an argument that the "SCOTUS cannot make any ruling it chooses to make?" Clearly they can and do make decisions all the time. That's what Judges do. They judge and decide. Why are you asking who has such authority so as to do this unknown act that stops the SCOTUS from making a ruling? What is the point of your deflection to this new area of discussion?

Again I have not deflected anything. I am discussing the thread topic and have gone into some detail in several posts re the tyranny of the minority that exists in the Supreme Court.

The question is--the question that pertains to the OP--is who judges SCOTUS? Where are the checks and balances on them? If they make an unconstitutional decision, who has the authority to bring them to task for it?

We do have an impeachment process for the Supreme court, but there should be powers for the states and people to act short of the prolonged, bloody, and almost impossible structure necessary to do that.

That is what Michelsen's amendment in part addresses. How is he wrong?

 

[RKMBrown]

I'm sorry I thought you said "I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else."

I was defending a previous statement with that line. Context is everything.

But the fact is a tiny minority of five SCOTUS justices, people who may not give a damn about the Constitution or existing law or individual or collective liberties, can have authority to make whatever opinion they wish that could restrict the liberties of anybody. And SCOTUS has been allowed to declare what will be the uncontested law of the land which gives it unlimited power in a way that the Founders never intended that it would have.

Likewise a tiny minority of bureaucrats can write rules and regulations that are given force of law and can be imposed to grant special privileges or restrict freedoms. And this will be done without any representation of our interests whatsoever.

Whatever issues with Michelsen's proposed amendment any of us might have, it would go a long way to correct this situation.

Ok.. so we are deflecting / moving the goal posts to the SCOTUS. I disagree, the SCOTUS does not have unlimited power. For example, if congress does not like us having liberty to get married, they can take it away with an amendment. See 16th amendment as an example of taking liberty away from the people. But they do not have unlimited power either. A super majority of the states have to approve.

I am not deflecting anything. I am discussing the thread topic. But please make an argument for why SCOTUS cannot make any ruling it chooses to make? Who has the authority to tell them they cannot?

Why would anyone be so stupid so as to make an argument that the "SCOTUS cannot make any ruling it chooses to make?" Clearly they can and do make decisions all the time. That's what Judges do. They judge and decide. Why are you asking who has such authority so as to do this unknown act that stops the SCOTUS from making a ruling? What is the point of your deflection to this new area of discussion?

Again I have not deflected anything. I am discussing the thread topic and have gone into some detail in several posts re the tyranny of the minority that exists in the Supreme Court.

The question is--the question that pertains to the OP--is who judges SCOTUS? Where are the checks and balances on them? If they make an unconstitutional decision, who has the authority to bring them to task for it?

We do have an impeachment process for the Supreme court, but there should be powers for the states and people to act short of the prolonged, bloody, and almost impossible structure necessary to do that.

That is what Michelsen's amendment in part addresses. How is he wrong?

As I previously stated we already have checks and balances on the SCOTUS. You mentioned one type another is Amendments, a third is the rest of the court system and other judges who are a part of our appeal system. The SCOTUS is not a tyranny by any measure.

As I previously stated Michelsen's Amendment is wrong for at least two reasons.

1) The terms are not well defined. What does declare mean? By popular vote? By legislative decree? What does "enactment" mean? Bill? Constitutional Amendment? Appointment? What does "considered" mean? 30second skim? 5years of review? What does scrutiny mean? Who does this critique? The states? Senators?

2) The first two items in his amendment are just too broad and remove all balance between federal and state control it essentially removes all Executive, Congressional, and federal judicial power. It would be a 180 degree swing where the feds have no power whatsoever over any states whatsoever.

The third item holds some hope.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I reject the Amendment totally.

Every voter uses their power to determine their Representative and their Senators every two and six years respectively.

Every voter uses their power to determine the President every four years.

As needed, representatives of the voters, i.e. the President with the oversight and consent of the Senate, appoint Supreme Court Justices.

We are a Republic, with representatives we have chosen acting on our behalf.

The O N LY way voters are made powerless as to the U.S. Government is when voters choose not to vote.

Voting is a choice and must not be made mandatory.

Regards from Rosie

What authority do you think the amendment takes away from the people's representatives?

The power of the SCOTUS, as given to that body thru the U.S. Constitution, to interpret the Constitutionality of laws.

As stated above, the Justices are the experts. Not state.bodies nor state judiciaries that are under Supreme Court jurisdiction.

This amendment aims to gut the SCOTUS and fools no one.

Regards from Rosie

Pure garbage.

The constitution says no such thing.

It was John Marshall who, essentially, usurped that interpretation in M. vs. M.

It was not exercised enough to worry about.

It was only when FDR didn't like what was going on that things heated up with regard to the SCOTUS.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I'm with Eagle and was before I read his post.

The senate was supposed to be that protection.

When the states (what the hell were they thinking) gave that away, they set the stage for what we have now.

No need for a new amendment....just repeal the existing 17th.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In further reading the proposals, all I see are more legislative gimicks.

Just like the senate being worthless without a 60% majority.

Giving a small minority power like that is just asking for trouble.

Especially in the house. That was designed to be the peoples house. Not the people bathroom.

 

[dcraelin]

I'm with Eagle and was before I read his post.

The senate was supposed to be that protection.

When the states (what the hell were they thinking) gave that away, they set the stage for what we have now.

No need for a new amendment....just repeal the existing 17th.

"The states" are composed of people , the 'interests of the state' are or should be the interests of the people of the state....Therefore your assertion that the change in election of Senators is some sort of dire change are over-wrought.

Now it may have magnified 'cult-of-personality' politics.....where advertising means more than it would otherwise....and this may have magnified the power of money interests rather than lessened it...which was the motive behind the change, Now that may be true.....but it is a marginal change....and it was apparent corruption in choosing Senators was rife the old way.

 

[dcraelin]

In further reading the proposals, all I see are more legislative gimicks.

Just like the senate being worthless without a 60% majority.

Giving a small minority power like that is just asking for trouble.

Especially in the house. That was designed to be the peoples house. Not the people bathroom.

I agree with you on giving a small minority power......that is just asking for trouble.

The Senate is an irrational body where NJ and DEL and RI have the same power as CALIF and TEXAS......THAT is what needs reform.

 

[eagle1462010]

In further reading the proposals, all I see are more legislative gimicks.

Just like the senate being worthless without a 60% majority.

Giving a small minority power like that is just asking for trouble.

Especially in the house. That was designed to be the peoples house. Not the people bathroom.

I agree with you on giving a small minority power......that is just asking for trouble.

The Senate is an irrational body where NJ and DEL and RI have the same power as CALIF and TEXAS......THAT is what needs reform.

aka That would end the purpose of the Republic......................and tends towards Pure Democracy.............where 50 plus 1 outweighs 50 minus 1 and bring in the era of the Tyranny of a weak majority........................

The Founders put the Senate in there for a reason.................and that reason still stands.............Pure Democracies............Not so much.

 

[Foxfyre]

In further reading the proposals, all I see are more legislative gimicks.

Just like the senate being worthless without a 60% majority.

Giving a small minority power like that is just asking for trouble.

Especially in the house. That was designed to be the peoples house. Not the people bathroom.

I agree with you on giving a small minority power......that is just asking for trouble.

The Senate is an irrational body where NJ and DEL and RI have the same power as CALIF and TEXAS......THAT is what needs reform.

I disagree. It is entirely rational when you figure that CALIF and TEXAS have representation commensurate with their huge populations in the House of Representatives but if the Senate was structured in the same way, a few big population states would have all the power and the small population states would have none. That would be a tyranny of a small minority. That every state has equal representation in the Senate evens the playing field on that score since both houses are necessary to pass legislation.

And I think Michelsen's suggestion of super majorities to pass all legislation shouldn't be dismissed purely on the basis of the dysfunctional Congress that we now have. You do away with the filibuster but require a super majority on all legislation that requires contribution or participation of any kind by the people/states, and the legislators who represent us would be forced to work together, agree to compromise, and come up with legislation that all could live with. Otherwise nobody would ever get anything they need.

I really wish we could all set aside partisanship and think about that more.

 

[dcraelin]

In further reading the proposals, all I see are more legislative gimicks.

Just like the senate being worthless without a 60% majority.

Giving a small minority power like that is just asking for trouble.

Especially in the house. That was designed to be the peoples house. Not the people bathroom.

I agree with you on giving a small minority power......that is just asking for trouble.

The Senate is an irrational body where NJ and DEL and RI have the same power as CALIF and TEXAS......THAT is what needs reform.

aka That would end the purpose of the Republic......................and tends towards Pure Democracy.............where 50 plus 1 outweighs 50 minus 1 and bring in the era of the Tyranny of a weak majority........................

The Founders put the Senate in there for a reason.................and that reason still stands.............Pure Democracies............Not so much.

wrong on so many levels I dont know where to begin

 

[eagle1462010]

In further reading the proposals, all I see are more legislative gimicks.

Just like the senate being worthless without a 60% majority.

Giving a small minority power like that is just asking for trouble.

Especially in the house. That was designed to be the peoples house. Not the people bathroom.

I agree with you on giving a small minority power......that is just asking for trouble.

The Senate is an irrational body where NJ and DEL and RI have the same power as CALIF and TEXAS......THAT is what needs reform.

aka That would end the purpose of the Republic......................and tends towards Pure Democracy.............where 50 plus 1 outweighs 50 minus 1 and bring in the era of the Tyranny of a weak majority........................

The Founders put the Senate in there for a reason.................and that reason still stands.............Pure Democracies............Not so much.

wrong on so many levels I dont know where to begin

Please proceed.................on how those states having very high populations should decide the fate and laws for all, including states that disagree................and that 50 plus 1 would not create the tyranny of a simple majority to nearly the same amount of people who disagree.

 

[dcraelin]

In further reading the proposals, all I see are more legislative gimicks.

Just like the senate being worthless without a 60% majority.

Giving a small minority power like that is just asking for trouble.

Especially in the house. That was designed to be the peoples house. Not the people bathroom.

I agree with you on giving a small minority power......that is just asking for trouble.

The Senate is an irrational body where NJ and DEL and RI have the same power as CALIF and TEXAS......THAT is what needs reform.

I disagree. It is entirely rational when you figure that CALIF and TEXAS have representation commensurate with their huge populations in the House of Representatives but if the Senate was structured in the same way, a few big population states would have all the power and the small population states would have none. That would be a tyranny of a small minority. That every state has equal representation in the Senate evens the playing field on that score since both houses are necessary to pass legislation.

And I think Michelsen's suggestion of super majorities to pass all legislation shouldn't be dismissed purely on the basis of the dysfunctional Congress that we now have. You do away with the filibuster but require a super majority on all legislation that requires contribution or participation of any kind by the people/states, and the legislators who represent us would be forced to work together, agree to compromise, and come up with legislation that all could live with. Otherwise nobody would ever get anything they need.

I really wish we could all set aside partisanship and think about that more.

that's just a recipe for gridlock.........and stagnation.

The Senate is based on the states yes.....which would do what you say if it was small states as in small states in population . But the Eastern seaboard states are not small in population really....NJ and RI are densely populated..........why shouldnt equally sized parts of Calif or Texas have equal representation?...............it makes no rational sense because the outlines of those original states is largely based on old............now non-existent, differences in religion...............which shouldnt have been a factor anyway.

 

[dcraelin]

In further reading the proposals, all I see are more legislative gimicks.

Just like the senate being worthless without a 60% majority.

Giving a small minority power like that is just asking for trouble.

Especially in the house. That was designed to be the peoples house. Not the people bathroom.

I agree with you on giving a small minority power......that is just asking for trouble.

The Senate is an irrational body where NJ and DEL and RI have the same power as CALIF and TEXAS......THAT is what needs reform.

aka That would end the purpose of the Republic......................and tends towards Pure Democracy.............where 50 plus 1 outweighs 50 minus 1 and bring in the era of the Tyranny of a weak majority........................

The Founders put the Senate in there for a reason.................and that reason still stands.............Pure Democracies............Not so much.

wrong on so many levels I dont know where to begin

Please proceed.................on how those states having very high populations should decide the fate and laws for all, including states that disagree................and that 50 plus 1 would not create the tyranny of a simple majority to nearly the same amount of people who disagree.

Those states wouldnt "decide the fate" under my proposal, any more anyway than they do now..........Who do you think runs the country.? The elites of the eastern seaboard states have outsized influence, ...that is for sure. If you lump the eastern seaboard states together they have outsized influence in both the house AND the Senate.....and also because of electoral college the presidency.

extreme examples never are usefull.....50%+1 ...ehh....might happen.............and it is an unstable majority that is likely to change, and so voters in such a split constituency are likely to shy away from extreme laws

 

[eagle1462010]

In further reading the proposals, all I see are more legislative gimicks.

Just like the senate being worthless without a 60% majority.

Giving a small minority power like that is just asking for trouble.

Especially in the house. That was designed to be the peoples house. Not the people bathroom.

I agree with you on giving a small minority power......that is just asking for trouble.

The Senate is an irrational body where NJ and DEL and RI have the same power as CALIF and TEXAS......THAT is what needs reform.

aka That would end the purpose of the Republic......................and tends towards Pure Democracy.............where 50 plus 1 outweighs 50 minus 1 and bring in the era of the Tyranny of a weak majority........................

The Founders put the Senate in there for a reason.................and that reason still stands.............Pure Democracies............Not so much.

wrong on so many levels I dont know where to begin

Please proceed.................on how those states having very high populations should decide the fate and laws for all, including states that disagree................and that 50 plus 1 would not create the tyranny of a simple majority to nearly the same amount of people who disagree.

Those states wouldnt "decide the fate" under my proposal, any more anyway than they do now..........Who do you think runs the country.? The elites of the eastern seaboard states have outsized influence, ...that is for sure. If you lump the eastern seaboard states together they have outsized influence in both the house AND the Senate.....and also because of electoral college the presidency.

extreme examples never are usefull.....50%+1 ...ehh....might happen.............and it is an unstable majority that is likely to change, and so voters in such a split constituency are likely to shy away from extreme laws

A temporary majority now leads to extreme laws..............under the current system.............the Checks and Balances are there in an attempt to prevent a temporary majority from staying in power...........It was purposely designed to make it hard to do so..............and the Senate is part of that purpose...........as is giving the power to stop legislation by the minority opinion by giving equal reps in the Senate as compared to much larger States in the Senate.

The Founders made it more difficult for stupid laws to be passed for a reason.........and their reasons are in the Federalist papers which include this point...........

The people have allowed our reps in gov't to be bought off without replacing them......which is the main problem today........Not removing a lynch pin of the CHECKS AND BALANCES as prescribed by the Founders.

 

[Derideo_Te]

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?

Because this proposal is nothing more than unconstitutional nullification;

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

We the People are all equal under the law of the land.

No state can declare itself exempt just like no individual can declare themselves exempt.

But for the sake of argument let's just assume that ridiculous suggestion becomes an Amendment and see what transpires.

A state elects a majority who believe that they should not be required to pay Federal income taxes so they decide to "prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders" all attempts by the IRS to collect taxes from it's citizens.

How does the OP imagine that is going to work out in real life?

 

[dcraelin]

I agree with you on giving a small minority power......that is just asking for trouble.

The Senate is an irrational body where NJ and DEL and RI have the same power as CALIF and TEXAS......THAT is what needs reform.

aka That would end the purpose of the Republic......................and tends towards Pure Democracy.............where 50 plus 1 outweighs 50 minus 1 and bring in the era of the Tyranny of a weak majority........................

The Founders put the Senate in there for a reason.................and that reason still stands.............Pure Democracies............Not so much.

wrong on so many levels I dont know where to begin

Please proceed.................on how those states having very high populations should decide the fate and laws for all, including states that disagree................and that 50 plus 1 would not create the tyranny of a simple majority to nearly the same amount of people who disagree.

Those states wouldnt "decide the fate" under my proposal, any more anyway than they do now..........Who do you think runs the country.? The elites of the eastern seaboard states have outsized influence, ...that is for sure. If you lump the eastern seaboard states together they have outsized influence in both the house AND the Senate.....and also because of electoral college the presidency.

extreme examples never are usefull.....50%+1 ...ehh....might happen.............and it is an unstable majority that is likely to change, and so voters in such a split constituency are likely to shy away from extreme laws

A temporary majority now leads to extreme laws..............under the current system.............the Checks and Balances are there in an attempt to prevent a temporary majority from staying in power...........It was purposely designed to make it hard to do so..............and the Senate is part of that purpose...........as is giving the power to stop legislation by the minority opinion by giving equal reps in the Senate as compared to much larger States in the Senate.

The Founders made it more difficult for stupid laws to be passed for a reason.........and their reasons are in the Federalist papers which include this point...........

The people have allowed our reps in gov't to be bought off without replacing them......which is the main problem today........Not removing a lynch pin of the CHECKS AND BALANCES as prescribed by the Founders.

Patrick Henry ridiculed the idea of "checks and balances" with good reason......it was merely a gloss over a consolidated system, a "big government" system.

The peoples delusions, are part of the problem, yes....but so is the system itself......which allows influence seekers to hide behind "checks and balances" and committees and "minority" rights etc. etc.

The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution

see my picture gallery which has founding quotes dealing with this issue.....especially Madison who hedges on his opinion in the federalist papers.

 

[eagle1462010]

aka That would end the purpose of the Republic......................and tends towards Pure Democracy.............where 50 plus 1 outweighs 50 minus 1 and bring in the era of the Tyranny of a weak majority........................

The Founders put the Senate in there for a reason.................and that reason still stands.............Pure Democracies............Not so much.

wrong on so many levels I dont know where to begin

Please proceed.................on how those states having very high populations should decide the fate and laws for all, including states that disagree................and that 50 plus 1 would not create the tyranny of a simple majority to nearly the same amount of people who disagree.

Those states wouldnt "decide the fate" under my proposal, any more anyway than they do now..........Who do you think runs the country.? The elites of the eastern seaboard states have outsized influence, ...that is for sure. If you lump the eastern seaboard states together they have outsized influence in both the house AND the Senate.....and also because of electoral college the presidency.

extreme examples never are usefull.....50%+1 ...ehh....might happen.............and it is an unstable majority that is likely to change, and so voters in such a split constituency are likely to shy away from extreme laws

A temporary majority now leads to extreme laws..............under the current system.............the Checks and Balances are there in an attempt to prevent a temporary majority from staying in power...........It was purposely designed to make it hard to do so..............and the Senate is part of that purpose...........as is giving the power to stop legislation by the minority opinion by giving equal reps in the Senate as compared to much larger States in the Senate.

The Founders made it more difficult for stupid laws to be passed for a reason.........and their reasons are in the Federalist papers which include this point...........

The people have allowed our reps in gov't to be bought off without replacing them......which is the main problem today........Not removing a lynch pin of the CHECKS AND BALANCES as prescribed by the Founders.

Patrick Henry ridiculed the idea of "checks and balances" with good reason......it was merely a l gloss over a consolidated system,"big government" system.

The peoples delusions, are part of the problem, yes....but so is the system itself......which allows influence seekers to hide behind "checks and balances" and committees and "minority" rights etc. etc.

The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution

see my picture gallery which has founding quotes dealing with this issue.....especially Madison who hedges on his opinion in the federalist papers.

The final passage was a compromise............and giving the states equal votes as a protection and check was part of it.........some wanted the Executive to have more power......some wanted a pure democracy.........and some wanted a republic..............

The final compromise was a Republic................and it works as long as we vote in the right people........which we have not done.

 

[dcraelin]

wrong on so many levels I dont know where to begin

Please proceed.................on how those states having very high populations should decide the fate and laws for all, including states that disagree................and that 50 plus 1 would not create the tyranny of a simple majority to nearly the same amount of people who disagree.

Those states wouldnt "decide the fate" under my proposal, any more anyway than they do now..........Who do you think runs the country.? The elites of the eastern seaboard states have outsized influence, ...that is for sure. If you lump the eastern seaboard states together they have outsized influence in both the house AND the Senate.....and also because of electoral college the presidency.

extreme examples never are usefull.....50%+1 ...ehh....might happen.............and it is an unstable majority that is likely to change, and so voters in such a split constituency are likely to shy away from extreme laws

A temporary majority now leads to extreme laws..............under the current system.............the Checks and Balances are there in an attempt to prevent a temporary majority from staying in power...........It was purposely designed to make it hard to do so..............and the Senate is part of that purpose...........as is giving the power to stop legislation by the minority opinion by giving equal reps in the Senate as compared to much larger States in the Senate.

The Founders made it more difficult for stupid laws to be passed for a reason.........and their reasons are in the Federalist papers which include this point...........

The people have allowed our reps in gov't to be bought off without replacing them......which is the main problem today........Not removing a lynch pin of the CHECKS AND BALANCES as prescribed by the Founders.

Patrick Henry ridiculed the idea of "checks and balances" with good reason......it was merely a l gloss over a consolidated system,"big government" system.

The peoples delusions, are part of the problem, yes....but so is the system itself......which allows influence seekers to hide behind "checks and balances" and committees and "minority" rights etc. etc.

The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution

see my picture gallery which has founding quotes dealing with this issue.....especially Madison who hedges on his opinion in the federalist papers.

The final passage was a compromise............and giving the states equal votes as a protection and check was part of it.........some wanted the Executive to have more power......some wanted a pure democracy.........and some wanted a republic..............

The final compromise was a Republic................and it works as long as we vote in the right people........which we have not done.

In the recent Arizona case the SC basically puts to rest your mistaken idea that their is a difference between a republic and a democracy.

The final Compromise was MAYBE needed then, Madison argued against this make-up of the Senate. as did Wilson another very learned founder (some say the most learned) . It is certainly not needed now. Most people would welcome a more fair,.... rational Senate.

Even prior to the revolution the British realized the stupidity of the small states being separately governed. Pennsylvania governed Delaware...and New Hampshire was governed by Massachusetts, as I recall the history. There is perhaps too much history to consolidate them now.....but could set up quasi states for federal purposes that would make the Senate fairer.