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.
They never said that
Again RETARD we are NOT a democracy.California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.
Ok, it was "We'll have to pass it to find out whats in it".
Thus the existence of the House.California has the same number of votes in the Senate as Wyoming, that's neither equality nor democracy.
Democracy is where you can go onto the Commons/Senate floor to partake in politics and decide laws, but because millions of people can't fit into one room, then you have the right to vote for someone to speak on your behalf. That person represents you, and that's representative democracy. So it's having the right to vote and be represented, that's democracy.Democracy is the rule of the people. it is in both cases a democracy, but I would prefer here the terms "aristocratic" and "plebeian" (or "primitive") democracy. The real democratic vertical of the King-Roman Senate of the Patricians against the plebeian flat model. The Republic includes both sides.
The UK monarchy is just purely constitutional and thus just undertakes various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties and no more.I can understand that. Maybe it's the American anti-royalism ingrained in me, but I'd have a problem with inherited positions (with actual political power) in The Year of Our Lord 2022.
Yeah, Head of State stuff. I get it. The House of Lords is made of up of people who inherited their titles, though, isn't it? That seems a bit antiquated to me.The UK monarchy is just purely constitutional and thus just undertakes various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties and no more.
In other words the classes that get pissed on.What did plebeian mean?
plebeian, also spelled Plebian, Latin Plebs, plural Plebes, member of the general citizenry in ancient Rome as opposed to the privileged patrician class.
plebeian | Definition, History, & Examples - Encyclopedia ...
This is the second time I've seen you insist that. What makes you think the US isn't a democracy?Again RETARD we are NOT a democracy.
The out going Prime Minister tends to appoint a Lord. Usually the speaker of the house gets nominated but despite the Labour opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, nominating John Bercow, the Tory government snubbed him, so he won't get a peerage.Yeah, Head of State stuff. I get it. The House of Lords is made of up of people who inherited their titles, though, isn't it? That seems a bit antiquated to me.
We are a REPUBLIC that elects representatives to rule for us. And the way we do that is by Population in the House and by states in the Senate. Claiming because we have 2 senators per state we are not a republic or a democratic republic is in fact RETARDED,This is the second time I've seen you insist that. What makes you think the US isn't a democracy?
I have a feeling you're saying "democracy" when what you mean is a "DIRECT democracy."
That was the very intent from the beginning. The Commons represent the people, the Lords represent the Crown. The checks and balances, sort of.Yeah, Head of State stuff. I get it. The House of Lords is made of up of people who inherited their titles, though, isn't it? That seems a bit antiquated to me.
Settle down, Francis. I'm not claiming that. I'm trying to inform you that we are, in fact, both a democracy and a republic.We are a REPUBLIC that elects representatives to rule for us. And the way we do that is by Population in the House and by states in the Senate. Claiming because we have 2 senators per state we are not a republic or a democratic republic is in fact RETARDED,
I haven't seen anyone—D or R—call for a change in how we allocate or elect Senators; it's the Electoral College that gets the heat.The Constitution is a Compact between the States.
The Framers had State Legislatures pick Senators because the Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the State. The House represents the interests of the people.
The 17th undermined a fundamental protection built into the Constitution. That is to prevent the whims of the population (as represented by the house) from passing laws adverse to the State, such as taking State land without the State's consent.
The 17th turned the Senate into a popularity contest, just like the House. Senators only have to satisfy voters, not State Legislatures (who they are supposed to be representing).
Now Democrats call the Senate "undemocratic", because Wyoming has an equal voice in the Senate as California.
Which was the exact intent of the Framers (and also why there is an equal standing clause in the Constitution).
Democrats want to abolish the Constitutional function of the Senate- allocating Senators by the census and electing them by popular vote would just make it an expansion of the House of Representatives.
This is not a "democratic" change- it is a fascist change that enables discrimination against the minority.
Yeah, I haven't analyzed it fully but from what I do know, I'm not convinced that it prevented any corruption. But hey, it was the Progressive Era, and until enough political will bubbles up against it, that's what we've got.The terms of the two offices reflect their purpose. A Representative serves for two years, because the Framers recognized that public opinion can change quickly. The "People's House" should reflect public opinion, so it requires shorter terms.
State's interests in Federal policy are not so volatile, and Senators should serve longer terms to act as a buffer against drastic changes initiated in the House. Since they were not elected by popular vote, they had a layer of insulation from angry voters.
There was corruption when State Legislatures were picking Senators, that's true. But there's still corruption in Senate elections today, so the 17th didn't really fix anything...