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.
Though the states generally allowed the people to participate in the selection of their senators, the selection process was yet at the discretion of the states. Even after the Philadelphia Convention, the states were republics, though consolidated. Democracy even at the state level was anathema to reason and prudence.Equal representation of the states was one of the innovations of the US Constitution, modeled after Connecticut's constitution. That along with a higher age requirement and longer terms for senators would allow the Senate to proceed with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the popular branch (James Madison).
Passion rules popular government while reason rules constitutional government, which is the reason that the people were not allowed to participate in the selection of senators. But enter the Progressive Era and a punctuated divestment of the United States from its constitutional principles.
people were not allowed to participate in the selection of senators
they were to the extent that they voted for those in the state seats that
then voted to elect the senators to represent the state
we should get back on that track posthaste
Personal insults are not convincing arguments.
It's pretty obvious that some countries are run better than ours.
Why?
Our system is flawed.
That wasn't and insult, just an observation from your many loving posts on denmark and sweden. The reason its not being run in an efficient manner is because of the worthless politicians that we elect to safeguard it.
No, it's because the system if flawed.
Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.
Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.
Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.
Though the states generally allowed the people to participate in the selection of their senators, the selection process was yet at the discretion of the states. Even after the Philadelphia Convention, the states were republics, though consolidated. Democracy even at the state level was anathema to reason and prudence.Equal representation of the states was one of the innovations of the US Constitution, modeled after Connecticut's constitution. That along with a higher age requirement and longer terms for senators would allow the Senate to proceed with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom than the popular branch (James Madison).
Passion rules popular government while reason rules constitutional government, which is the reason that the people were not allowed to participate in the selection of senators. But enter the Progressive Era and a punctuated divestment of the United States from its constitutional principles.
people were not allowed to participate in the selection of senators
they were to the extent that they voted for those in the state seats that
then voted to elect the senators to represent the state
we should get back on that track posthaste
"President Obama is taking a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his inability to move his agenda on the disadvantage of having each state represented equally in the Senate
So much for supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States. Just another lie from the mulatto messiah.
You might try a little thinking. A history lesson is not necessary for us to know that, in the end, the idea of an equal representation of states prevailed over the idea of a selection of senators based on equally populated districts.So much for supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States. Just another lie from the mulatto messiah.
Will you read some history, little tigger, please.
Madison and Washington and others were in agreement with this theory in 1787.
You might try a little thinking. A history lesson is not necessary for us to know that, in the end, the idea of an equal representation of states prevailed over the idea of a selection of senators based on equally populated districts.So much for supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States. Just another lie from the mulatto messiah.
Will you read some history, little tigger, please.
Madison and Washington and others were in agreement with this theory in 1787.
That is, after all, the outcome at the Philadelphia Convention.
He will also not get his way.
This is pretty much the same system we have used for over 200 years and on the whole I would say it works pretty good and every President before Obama has managed to deal with it if they could he can and if you can't you really shouldn't run for President.
This is pretty much the same system we have used for over 200 years and on the whole I would say it works pretty good and every President before Obama has managed to deal with it if they could he can and if you can't you really shouldn't run for President.
it could be improved by repealing the 17th amendment
You know neither history nor Barry Obama.You might try a little thinking. A history lesson is not necessary for us to know that, in the end, the idea of an equal representation of states prevailed over the idea of a selection of senators based on equally populated districts.Will you read some history, little tigger, please.
Madison and Washington and others were in agreement with this theory in 1787.
That is, after all, the outcome at the Philadelphia Convention.
Typical mirror nattering. Obama does not differ from Madison and Washington in their thinking of representation, thus BHO is not an ogre.
He will also not get his way.
This is pretty much the same system we have used for over 200 years and on the whole I would say it works pretty good and every President before Obama has managed to deal with it if they could he can and if you can't you really shouldn't run for President.
it could be improved by repealing the 17th amendment
Possibly or it could make it worse until there are enough people willing to roll the dice on it we will never know.
You know neither history nor Barry Obama.You might try a little thinking. A history lesson is not necessary for us to know that, in the end, the idea of an equal representation of states prevailed over the idea of a selection of senators based on equally populated districts.
That is, after all, the outcome at the Philadelphia Convention.
Typical mirror nattering. Obama does not differ from Madison and Washington in their thinking of representation, thus BHO is not an ogre.
He will also not get his way.
That wasn't and insult, just an observation from your many loving posts on denmark and sweden. The reason its not being run in an efficient manner is because of the worthless politicians that we elect to safeguard it.
No, it's because the system if flawed.
Canada does not allow any corporate campaign contributions. As a result they have universal healthcare, gay marriage, sensible gun laws, and a well regulated banking system. In fact since 1790 the United States has had 16 banking system failures, Canada has had 0.
Now Republicans on the Supreme Court have voted to allow unlimited secret campaign contributions. This basically means legalized secret bribes.
Are the Canadians smarter than us? Yes.
The canadian healthcare system? I know you're serious. That's the hilarious part. We have gun laws, many of which infringe on the second. Our serious banking problems have occurred from the fed tinkering around and creating bubbles that produce unintended consequences. You're wrong. The politicians have continually screwed this country. If they were to follow the constitution we wouldn't be in the shape that we're in.
. Obama is what the Founding Fathers worried about."President Obama is taking a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his inability to move his agenda on the disadvantage of having each state represented equally in the Senate
Obama is arguing for Madison's original Big State plan that would make representation in both Senate and House based on population. Washington agreed with it and some others as well.
I think Obama, Washington, and Madison were wrong, but it does put the president in good company.
Check it out. Obama simply accurately comments on how things are, and the ODS crowd shits themselves and then wildly flings feces about the room. ODSers, this is why nobody of any political persuasion wants you near them. You're all crazy. At the family gatherings, you're the one everyone just smiles and nods at, and then moves away from.
Seriously kooks, commenting on how things are is not a "Swipe at the founding fathers". Obama did not complain, suggest any changes, or "blame" in any way. You all are just making shit up again. But then, if you were honest, you wouldn't be ODSers. In the lying assbag department, nobody on the planet outdoes the ODSers. If they don't lie about Obama 3 times before breakfast, they get ejected from the cult.
"President Obama is taking a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his inability to move his agenda on the disadvantage of having each state represented equally in the Senate."
He's complaining because the system is working as it's supposed to, to curb his power.
Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage, Mr. Obama said."
"The president also blamed demographics for the inability of the Democratic Party to gain more power in Congress, saying Democrats tend to congregate a little more densely in cities such as New York and Chicago. He said it gives Republicans disproportional clout in Congress."
Read more: Obama blames 'structural' design of Congress for gridlock - Washington Times
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Yup, progressive douchebags tend to cluster in a couple of large cities, and they think they should have the authority to dictate what everybody else spread out over the nation is allowed to do.
Too bad.
You would hear the very same tune being sung by a Republican president if the situation were reversed.
Our system of governance was created in a different era. It was a slower era where slow deliberations were fine since transportation and communication were much slower as well. In the fast paced world of today where technology is racing ever faster, a slow-paced governmental response to a fast-changing world puts our country at a disadvantage to others who can more nimbly respond to problems.
Another problem is what's happened to our political parties. Both parties used to have a conservative and a liberal wing along with a large number of moderates in each party. When push came to shove, the moderates in both parties could reach a compromise sometimes with support from either more conservative or more liberal elements of both parties as well. Things got done. Now it's entirely different. Both parties are essentially on opposite ideological poles of the political spectrum. That means that on balance, the most liberal Republicans are essentially more conservative than the most conservative Democrats are. That makes compromise very difficult. With the way our political system is structured, when either party is in the minority, it can obstruct the other party in power if that's what they want to do. That means that little gets done and problems don't get addressed.
Guess what happens then? Things get worse, and each side blames the other side.
Holy Chit! Where were you from 2001 to 2009? Bush never criticized the Constitution or the way the Founders set up the Congress!
Obama was the one attacking Bush for violating the constitution, now he's made Bush look like a strict Constitutionalist!
