Obama blames "structural" flaw of Congress

[JakeStarkey]

CRUZ / LEE - 2016 will ensure a massive Democratic victory across the board.

And you Marxist leaning Democrats are doing your best toward that. Which shows that once out of the basement much may be possible. Someday.

Typical Houghian logic: the "Marxist leaning Democrats are doing" their "best toward that." Meaning the Dems are going to nominate Cruz and Lee at the convention.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

History will show that the Senate is indeed a reactionary anachronism that, historically, has served to frustrate the will of the people in order to preserve the privileges of the elite. I would expect the Senate to be neutered, not abolished. This is what the British have done with the House of Lords. Other nations have made similar adjustments. We will see direct election of the President as prelude to the change in the Senate.

These changes will not come about until the new majority produced by the dramatic shift in demographics already under way has consolidated its political power. My guess: twenty years or so. But come it willl

The Senate was created to be the representatives of the individual state governments. The 17th Amendment changed that as a result we are stuck with the mess we have today. Senators were never meant to be elected by the people and allowing so screwed up the balance of power.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Those of you unhappy with President Obama would look a good deal more educated and more objective were you to wait until he's actually done or said something worth criticism. Characterizing Obama's comments here that the concentration of democrats in urban population centers weakens their ability to control the Senate, as an attack on the government's Constitutionally mandated structure, only serves to make you look like someone scrabbling for something with which to attack the man. That is; that you've got little or nothing to hold against him. Of course this is the actual state of affairs, but I'm not the one to rub that in.

Typical libtard, obamashitforbrains has said and done plenty to be criticized for and worse.

 

[Samson]

The Senate was a necessary evil to get all the states on board.

Damn Rhode Island.

 

[regent]

"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.

He sure cries a lot when the constitution actually works to stop his stupidity. What a blithering cry baby, like most libtards.

As another baby said "I wish the Constitution which is offered had been made more perfect; but I sincerely believe it is the best that could be obtained at this time."
G. Washington 1787
I wonder if any of the framers were 100% happy with their finished document and maybe all knew it had flaws. Certainly one that teaches the Constitution knows of those flaws. and if not they shouldn't be teaching the Constitution.

 

[007]

Those of you unhappy with President Obama would look a good deal more educated and more objective were you to wait until he's actually done or said something worth criticism. Characterizing Obama's comments here that the concentration of democrats in urban population centers weakens their ability to control the Senate, as an attack on the government's Constitutionally mandated structure, only serves to make you look like someone scrabbling for something with which to attack the man. That is; that you've got little or nothing to hold against him. Of course this is the actual state of affairs, but I'm not the one to rub that in.

XXXXXXX

 

[Skull Pilot]

Only the neanderthalls

No man's life liberty or property is safe while congress is in session

I have been through over 50 sessions and my liberty and property are intact

See grid lock works.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Seriously, Pajama Girl, get help with that lisp. It's one of the many things Your New Messiah's BigZeroCare will pay for!

as long as it is in network

pre approved

and after the deductible has been met

 

[JakeStarkey]

You folks are going to have trouble with the future as your numbers decline and the marginalization tightens and the denunciations of your ideas becomes a crescendo.

Tough to be you.

 

[peach174]

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.

You think we've never had a GOP president facing a solidly Dem Congress?
We need to bring back election of senators by state legislatures. It would solve a lot of problems.

The difference is the Democrats have always been willing to compromise. Not so with the current "No Compromise", "Failure of the Obama Presidency at any cost " attitude of the opposition party.

Yes, President Obama is right. The 113th Congress will be the least productive in history.

No they haven't, the far left social democrats who took over the democrat party in the 1970's shut the government down 7 times, they refused to compromise till they got what they wanted and at that time they were a small minority of the party.
The Democrats have pushed out the Conservatives of their party in the 1990's and in 2009got the moderates to shut up and go along with their far left agenda.

 

[regent]

Me: 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

Me: Sure, they would not have abided a person of color in office as their equal.
------------------------ and


me: The immediate above quote completely dismantles the doosh and neo-cons.

Washington came from Virginia, A Big State, thus it should shock no one to hear he approved of fellow Viginian Madison's plan: The plan, also has the lower house electing members of the upper house.

The Legislature would then elect the Executive.

I doubt Lincoln would have ever been President.

You are right, I believe. The power that Madison invested in the National Legislature admittedly was great.

"6. Resolved that each branch ought to possess the right of originating Acts; that the National Legislature ought to be impowered to enjoy the Legislative Rights vested in Congress bar the Confederation & moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union; and to call forth the force of the Union agst any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof."

Read more: The Virginia Plan - May 29, 1787 by James Madison

Any one who thinks that Madison was not a Big Government dude does not the history of the Convention.

Yes, the whole purpose of the convention was to make the government bigger, more powerful, at the expense of the state's powers and size.

 

[norwegen]

Washington came from Virginia, A Big State, thus it should shock no one to hear he approved of fellow Viginian Madison's plan: The plan, also has the lower house electing members of the upper house.

The Legislature would then elect the Executive.

I doubt Lincoln would have ever been President.

You are right, I believe. The power that Madison invested in the National Legislature admittedly was great.

"6. Resolved that each branch ought to possess the right of originating Acts; that the National Legislature ought to be impowered to enjoy the Legislative Rights vested in Congress bar the Confederation & moreover to legislate in all cases to which the separate States are incompetent, or in which the harmony of the United States may be interrupted by the exercise of individual Legislation; to negative all laws passed by the several States, contravening in the opinion of the National Legislature the articles of Union; and to call forth the force of the Union agst any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duty under the articles thereof."

Read more: The Virginia Plan - May 29, 1787 by James Madison

Any one who thinks that Madison was not a Big Government dude does not the history of the Convention.

Yes, the whole purpose of the convention was to make the government bigger, more powerful, at the expense of the state's powers and size.

Initially, the purpose of the convention was to revise the Articles. The convention became a constitutional convention, the anti-Federalists conceding the debate to the Federalists, ending in a sharp shift to the left. After the convention, the Federalists continued their leftward trend, prompting Madison to leave the Federalists and join the Republicans.

Madison wanted a stronger, more cohesive union, but not a monarchy or democracy. Hence the Bill of Rights.

In the context of America's history, the Constitution is something of a centrist document, making conservatives more centrist than right-wing. A check of the states on the people and of the people on the states is a centrist idea. To make both chambers answerable to the people is leftist.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

Two Moderators have cleaned this thread already.
Zone2 violations will be cited. Please post only topical
responses..

flacaltenn

 

[BlindBoo]

The founders knew that gridlock is a good thing as far as congress is concerned.

It's Obama that's too fucking stupid to realize that.

Gridlock was good for an isolated country of mostly rural farming communities when the fastest communication from one end of the country to the other was horseback. Not so much in the world of instant communications we live in today.

Oh, you mean the world where the people in the city think they have the right to ride roughshod over what the rest of the country wants? And ignore or change the Constitution because it's preventing them from establishing the US as a marxist shithole?

Bummer.

No. Not what I meant at all.

 

[bedowin62]

Gridlock was good for an isolated country of mostly rural farming communities when the fastest communication from one end of the country to the other was horseback. Not so much in the world of instant communications we live in today.

Oh, you mean the world where the people in the city think they have the right to ride roughshod over what the rest of the country wants? And ignore or change the Constitution because it's preventing them from establishing the US as a marxist shithole?

Bummer.

No. Not what I meant at all.

WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT YOUR POST i belive it IS what you meant

because you're ignorant; and a rabid blind apologist for the excesses of the left-wing agenda and this Administration

 

[Darkwind]

"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.

This entire reply assumes that governments actually solve problems rather than exacerbate them.

 

[BlindBoo]

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

All it will take is a new Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[BlindBoo]

Those of you unhappy with President Obama would look a good deal more educated and more objective were you to wait until he's actually done or said something worth criticism. Characterizing Obama's comments here that the concentration of democrats in urban population centers weakens their ability to control the Senate, as an attack on the government's Constitutionally mandated structure, only serves to make you look like someone scrabbling for something with which to attack the man. That is; that you've got little or nothing to hold against him. Of course this is the actual state of affairs, but I'm not the one to rub that in.

Those of you unhappy with President Obama would look a good deal more educated and more objective were you to wait until he's actually done or said something worth criticism.

Are you fucking kidding?

News Flash dumbass, Obama has already done and said plenty that is worth impeachment.

Duh!

I think crick meant normal people............not you impeachment nutters.

 

[BlindBoo]

History will show that the Senate is indeed a reactionary anachronism that, historically, has served to frustrate the will of the people in order to preserve the privileges of the elite. I would expect the Senate to be neutered, not abolished. This is what the British have done with the House of Lords. Other nations have made similar adjustments. We will see direct election of the President as prelude to the change in the Senate.

These changes will not come about until the new majority produced by the dramatic shift in demographics already under way has consolidated its political power. My guess: twenty years or so. But come it willl

The Senate was created to be the representatives of the individual state governments. The 17th Amendment changed that as a result we are stuck with the mess we have today. Senators were never meant to be elected by the people and allowing so screwed up the balance of power.

In a majority of states people were already electing their Senators prior to the 17th Amendment being ratified.

By 1912, as many as twenty-nine states elected senators either as nominees of their party's primary or in a general election. As representatives of a direct election process, the new senators supported measures that argued for federal legislation, but in order to achieve reform, a constitutional amendment was required. In 1911, Senator Joseph Bristow from Kansas offered a resolution, proposing a constitutional amendment. The idea also enjoyed strong support from Senator William Borah of Idaho, himself a product of direct election. Eight southern senators and all Republican senators from New England, New York, and Pennsylvania opposed Senator Bristow's resolution.

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Institutional Development > Direct Election of Senators

 

[BlindBoo]

Oh, you mean the world where the people in the city think they have the right to ride roughshod over what the rest of the country wants? And ignore or change the Constitution because it's preventing them from establishing the US as a marxist shithole?

Bummer.

No. Not what I meant at all.

WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT YOUR POST i belive it IS what you meant

because you're ignorant; and a rabid blind apologist for the excesses of the left-wing agenda and this Administration

Of course you would think that. When in reality it was about the intent of the Founders to have a government that works slowly and deliberately.