Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The Federalist 62
HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate. The heads into which this member of the government may be considered are: I. The qualification of senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; III. The equality of representation in the Senate; IV. The number of senators, and the term for which they are to be elected; V. The powers vested in the Senate.
III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation.
1. I posted this just to pull your dang chain.The Federalist 62
HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate. The heads into which this member of the government may be considered are: I. The qualification of senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; III. The equality of representation in the Senate; IV. The number of senators, and the term for which they are to be elected; V. The powers vested in the Senate.
III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation.
I. The qualification of senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; was amended. The Constitution you claim to worship and the Federalist also discuss amending powers.
Nothing here has changed: however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils unless of course FOX News has told you California has 18 Senators
Good Gawd man...........I referenced Obamacare because it serves as an example if we didn't have the checks and balances of OUR REPUBLIC MAN...................
Good Gawd man you are still splitting freaking hairs over the intent of the posts.
Do you like our form of Gov't? Yes or No.
Or would you rather not have a Senate at all............that's a simple question.
...
Do you agree with us being a Republic or do you want another form of Gov't..............
1) and again you are the one taking my statement out of context trying to say I said something that was not the intent of the sentence.
2) Your point is................you are better at the english language than mine.........nah nah nah nah nah.............
WTF.
Nope, and it was legal in California before Colorado.1. I posted this just to pull your dang chain.The Federalist 62
HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate. The heads into which this member of the government may be considered are: I. The qualification of senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; III. The equality of representation in the Senate; IV. The number of senators, and the term for which they are to be elected; V. The powers vested in the Senate.
III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation.
I. The qualification of senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; was amended. The Constitution you claim to worship and the Federalist also discuss amending powers.
Nothing here has changed: however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils unless of course FOX News has told you California has 18 Senators
2. I never stated that the appointment of Senators WASN 'T AMENDED.............now did I. I never stated that the powers to amend our constitution didn't exist either.
3. and now you shift to BS of stating California has 18 Senators...........
4. I believe you live in Colorado and are smoking something.
Disclaimer.
Item 3 of the last post was written to piss off poster.
It was never intended to state that I believe Dante ever believed that idiotic post.
It was to give him a taste of his own tactics to let him know that I think he's a dumb ass or playing the troll.
Now. Back to the WEBSTERS dictionary class..............
Thank you for your patience.
And again, Obamacare was passed under a TEMPORARY SUPER MAJORITY................And again..........it would serve as an example of how all laws could be passed if we didn't live under a Republic as the Founders Created.Good Gawd man...........I referenced Obamacare because it serves as an example if we didn't have the checks and balances of OUR REPUBLIC MAN...................
Good Gawd man you are still splitting freaking hairs over the intent of the posts.
Do you like our form of Gov't? Yes or No.
Or would you rather not have a Senate at all............that's a simple question.
...
Do you agree with us being a Republic or do you want another form of Gov't..............
Dear demented one, Obamacare does NOT serve the example you claim. Intent about our Constitution and what it means has been around since it's drafting, before ratification. You haven't paid much attention: Dante loves our system and doesn't complain -- like you do. Why in the whacky world of indirect democracy would I NOT want a bicameral legislature? Pay attention more as Dante has referred to America being a republic in posted replies top you -- geeze!
aka your troll post is to now state that I didn't know it was legal in California already.Nope, and it was legal in California before Colorado.1. I posted this just to pull your dang chain.The Federalist 62
HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate. The heads into which this member of the government may be considered are: I. The qualification of senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; III. The equality of representation in the Senate; IV. The number of senators, and the term for which they are to be elected; V. The powers vested in the Senate.
III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion. If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils, it does not appear to be without some reason that in a compound republic, partaking both of the national and federal character, the government ought to be founded on a mixture of the principles of proportional and equal representation.
I. The qualification of senators; II. The appointment of them by the State legislatures; was amended. The Constitution you claim to worship and the Federalist also discuss amending powers.
Nothing here has changed: however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils unless of course FOX News has told you California has 18 Senators
2. I never stated that the appointment of Senators WASN 'T AMENDED.............now did I. I never stated that the powers to amend our constitution didn't exist either.
3. and now you shift to BS of stating California has 18 Senators...........
4. I believe you live in Colorado and are smoking something.
you need to get out more often and get some adult education courses going
[
BTW Dante.........Witches do not exist.
And again, Obamacare was passed under a TEMPORARY SUPER MAJORITY................And again..........it would serve as an example of how all laws could be passed if we didn't live under a Republic as the Founders Created.
That is a matter of opinion, and yes I do support the Tea Party.[
BTW Dante.........Witches do not exist.
They do in the Tea Party
Christine O Donnell - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
aka your troll post is to now state that I didn't know it was legal in California already.
Something I didn't say as I suggested you may live in Colorado.
Now I would think you live in California, and live in the bay area.
Just an opinion of course...........
Which adult education courses are needed......................
How same sex couples marriages are good for america San Fran literature...................
and again...........this is off topic and is not an englash thread.
Disclaimer.
Item 3 of the last post was written to piss off poster.
It was never intended to state that I believe Dante ever believed that idiotic post.
It was to give him a taste of his own tactics to let him know that I think he's a dumb ass or playing the troll.
Now. Back to the WEBSTERS dictionary class..............
Thank you for your patience.
Dante is amused by your speaking to an invisible as well as anonymous (if one exists) crowd.
Your fail is also amusing
Which part of the Dems had power in all 3 branches at the same time don't you understand. Which is right in line with my statements and examples if we didn't have the checks on power. It is an example of how gov't would always be if we didn't have a Republic, and under that would you agree with the GOP at the same time telling you to get on the back of the bus.And again, Obamacare was passed under a TEMPORARY SUPER MAJORITY................And again..........it would serve as an example of how all laws could be passed if we didn't live under a Republic as the Founders Created.
You actually have no idea what you are talking about, do you? A temporary super majority? There is nothing in the US Constitution that prevents a sitting Congress from passing a law with the support of only one party. All Congresses are temporary. All laws are passed the same way.
Obamacare is the law of the land and the Supreme Court challenges have failed as you have.
see you at the looney bin
My Dearest dumb ass...........I didn't look at your profile.............and don't fing care if you lived on the moon.aka your troll post is to now state that I didn't know it was legal in California already.
Something I didn't say as I suggested you may live in Colorado.
Now I would think you live in California, and live in the bay area.
Just an opinion of course...........
Which adult education courses are needed......................
How same sex couples marriages are good for america San Fran literature...................
and again...........this is off topic and is not an englash thread.
My Dearest Fruitcase, my profile says I live in Hollywood
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.Disclaimer.
Item 3 of the last post was written to piss off poster.
It was never intended to state that I believe Dante ever believed that idiotic post.
It was to give him a taste of his own tactics to let him know that I think he's a dumb ass or playing the troll.
Now. Back to the WEBSTERS dictionary class..............
Thank you for your patience.
Dante is amused by your speaking to an invisible as well as anonymous (if one exists) crowd.
Your fail is also amusing
some things deserve repeating...
and this is one
later
I reread my post. remove the word NOT from the 50 plus 1 rule. It is the will of the MAJORITY...........but please don't state it's the will of everyone as that would not be true.We'll disagree as the Federalist papers are full of how to reign in power all over the place. They are in the warning statements of the same about the tyranny of a majority.Dante post: 10380873 said:Mob rule is the control by a simple majority whether it be Democratic or Republican, Liberal or Conservative.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'.
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, we'll disagree about their intentions............Majority opinions versus minority positions are negotiated under the checks and balances by design.
We did not disagree about anything in the Federalist. You have misrepresented things and you are mildly to severely confused
My explanation is fine and dandy in why we shouldn't have just a HOUSE OF REPS............Because 50 plus 1 would decide for the 50 minus 1.
It is explained in the Federalist papers and is considered the TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY which the founders wanted to stop. Which is also referred to as MOB RULE.
