View Poll Results: Should the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Senate?

Voters
78. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    1 1.28%
  • No

    58 74.36%
  • No, but serious modifications in the structure of Congress is needed

    16 20.51%
  • IDK/other

    3 3.85%
Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 196

Thread: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

  1. #111
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,888
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Suppresses? I have no idea what you mean by that. Can you explain it please?

    Sorry Haymarket, I'm not playing your game. You know quite well what the word means and how it is applied in the political sphere. Anyone with the kind of background that you claim to have would easily know it.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  2. #112
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,088

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Sorry Haymarket, I'm not playing your game. You know quite well what the word means and how it is applied in the political sphere. Anyone with the kind of background that you claim to have would easily know it.
    You defining the word is key.... vital ..... essential .... and basic to you being able to defend your point. If you cannot do so - the reason is obvious.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  3. #113
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,888
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    To take our argument to the next level, so are cities different and so are towns and so are the various neighborhoods withing them. So what? Why should the weighted power of a vote or a states vote be attached to those assumed differences?

    What is considered as 'true' in the Mission district of San fransisco is not 'true' in the Beacon Hill section of Massachusetts and is probably different than the Black Bottom on the east side of Detroit? So what? Why should voting power be weighted significantly because of those differences?

    I see no argument for that simple reality?
    Why is it just as valid today as it was 200 years ago? I just gave you a scenario which showed exactly why it is no longer the case.
    Because the needs of one city in one area of the country may be different than what is needful in another part of the country. For example, what grows in San Francisco? What grows in Beacon Hill? There is a difference. One type of plant may thrive in one area and die in another. As such there may need to be laws that allow certain techniques to grow such a plant in one area while those same laws are totally worthless to have in another.

    Another example: Is the youthful population higher in Canada than in Florida? If there is a difference then car insurance laws may reflect such things.

    Another example: In just about any city it is illegal to fire a gun inside city limits without due cause in order to prevent people from accidentally getting shot. Yet outside of the city, in the boondocks the reason for that law is no longer pressing. As such the law is not needed and people may freely target practice all that they want without fear of hitting someone else. Such a law being imposed on those that have no fear of hitting anyone else because no one else is literally around for miles and miles would be nothing more an over reach of powers and tyrannical in nature.

    Another example: The minimum wage in Idaho is 7.25/hr. The minimum wage in California is going to go up to $10.00/hr. Why the difference? Because the cost of living is much higher in California than it is in Idaho. So if California were able to influence the minimum wage in Idaho and forced the minimum wage up to $10.00/hr it would have several negative effects. Like loss of employment due to businesses shutting down or laying off and an increase in cost of living. And yes, the same can be said of your examples of cities.

    I could go on and on with lots of different examples. Suffice it to say that what I stated stands. What is true in one area of the country is not necessarily true in another part of the country. As such demanding that some law apply to another part of the country is foolhardy at best. Disastrous at worse. I prefer the middle where if a law is to be applied to ALL states then it must be passed with all parties having an equal standing vote. Not one party having more votes than another and thereby pushing something that is simply not needed anywhere but their own area.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  4. #114
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,888
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    You defining the word is key.... vital ..... essential .... and basic to you being able to defend your point. If you cannot do so - the reason is obvious.
    No, there is a common definition of the word used by everyone. I will not play your semantical game Haymarket. If you cannot address what I said in whole without resorting to semantics of one particular word then your arguement obviously cannot stand on its own.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  5. #115
    Student francois60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    I agree with your legal interpretation. But we as a nation - if indeed we aspire to be one nation - badly need to advance beyond the 18th century and the sensibilities of that day.
    I don't think federalism is an outdated concept though. A united Europe will also have a federalist structure and there are other such republics elsewhere in the world.

    Once upon a time a person considered themselves as a Virginian, or a Kentuckian, or a Massachusetts man or a New Hampshire man. They lived their lives as that and there was very strong state identity. That day is long gone. Today a person is born in Michigan, moves to Ohio as a child and gets some of their education there, moves to Mississippi and finishes high school there, goes to UCLA in California as an undergrad, does an advanced degree in Massachusetts, gets married to a girl from New Mexico and they live in Texas, Arizona and Washington state before retiring forty years later and moving to Florida.
    Your point is valid, but we're not quite there yet. There is still too much difference in culture between states to make such a nation workable. When Texans aren't too different from New Yorkers we can revisit this. Heck, first we need to resolve the differences between just Vermont and New Hampshire, Vermont being maybe the most hardcore liberal state in the union and New Hampshire having no income or sales taxes and having a strong libertarian streak.

    That is life for Americans in the 21st century. The day of state identity is long past. The law needs to badly catch up with that reality we all live with.
    States still have interests that conflict though, and the people tend to be aware of it. The farm states have their interests, the coal states have their interests.... Once larger states like california start trying to regulate what happens in other states, sectionalism can come back with a vengeance. Like I said, we're not quite there yet. Heck, Canada isn't quite there yet.

  6. #116
    Student francois60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Suppresses? I have no idea what you mean by that. Can you explain it please?
    The system is designed to require shifting coalitions. In theory, ten big states could band together and rule the nation if we had proportional representation. Obviously that won't happen because those states have too many conflicting interests. But the smaller states worried enough about that that they required approval for all laws not just from a popular house, but also a Senate, which by definition means a majority of states agree when something gets passed.

    So any law requires that not only 51% of the people support it, but also at least 26 states.

    Also, understand that the majority of governance is at the state and local level. The federal government only has a limited set of responsibilities, and I think it does make sense for the states to be in general agreement when deciding to let the federal government do various things for that reason.

    If we transitioned to a government where the federal government had unlimited powers, and the states were simply administrative districts, then a Senate would make no sense. But as long as states are self-governing, and vastly different in how they self-govern, they also need a say in how the federal government.
    Last edited by francois60; 10-16-13 at 01:12 PM.

  7. #117
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,088

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    Because the needs of one city in one area of the country may be different than what is needful in another part of the country. For example, what grows in San Francisco? What grows in Beacon Hill? There is a difference. One type of plant may thrive in one area and die in another. As such there may need to be laws that allow certain techniques to grow such a plant in one area while those same laws are totally worthless to have in another.

    Another example: Is the youthful population higher in Canada than in Florida? If there is a difference then car insurance laws may reflect such things.

    Another example: In just about any city it is illegal to fire a gun inside city limits without due cause in order to prevent people from accidentally getting shot. Yet outside of the city, in the boondocks the reason for that law is no longer pressing. As such the law is not needed and people may freely target practice all that they want without fear of hitting someone else. Such a law being imposed on those that have no fear of hitting anyone else because no one else is literally around for miles and miles would be nothing more an over reach of powers and tyrannical in nature.

    Another example: The minimum wage in Idaho is 7.25/hr. The minimum wage in California is going to go up to $10.00/hr. Why the difference? Because the cost of living is much higher in California than it is in Idaho. So if California were able to influence the minimum wage in Idaho and forced the minimum wage up to $10.00/hr it would have several negative effects. Like loss of employment due to businesses shutting down or laying off and an increase in cost of living. And yes, the same can be said of your examples of cities.

    I could go on and on with lots of different examples. Suffice it to say that what I stated stands. What is true in one area of the country is not necessarily true in another part of the country. As such demanding that some law apply to another part of the country is foolhardy at best. Disastrous at worse. I prefer the middle where if a law is to be applied to ALL states then it must be passed with all parties having an equal standing vote. Not one party having more votes than another and thereby pushing something that is simply not needed anywhere but their own area.
    How do any of these examples for state or local laws dealing with a state or local problem justify allowing a system where the votes of some people are weighted more heavilly than others in national matters?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  8. #118
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,088

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    No, there is a common definition of the word used by everyone. I will not play your semantical game Haymarket. If you cannot address what I said in whole without resorting to semantics of one particular word then your arguement obviously cannot stand on its own.
    Then it should be very simple for you to present it. Words mean something. Definitions mean something. One of the first things done in actual debate is to clarify the definitions of the terms being used so both sides are on the same page.

    Why are you unable to do this simply thing?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #119
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:56 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    90,088

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by francois60 View Post
    The system is designed to require shifting coalitions. In theory, ten big states could band together and rule the nation if we had proportional representation. Obviously that won't happen because those states have too many conflicting interests. But the smaller states worried enough about that that they required approval for all laws not just from a popular house, but also a Senate, which by definition means a majority of states agree when something gets passed.

    So any law requires that not only 51% of the people support it, but also at least 26 states.

    Also, understand that the majority of governance is at the state and local level. The federal government only has a limited set of responsibilities, and I think it does make sense for the states to be in general agreement when deciding to let the federal government do various things for that reason.

    If we transitioned to a government where the federal government had unlimited powers, and the states were simply administrative districts, then a Senate would make no sense. But as long as states are self-governing, and vastly different in how they self-govern, they also need a say in how the federal government.
    What is the justification for having a system where a minority of people can stifle the will of a much larger majority in matters within the Constitution?
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  10. #120
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,888
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    How do any of these examples for state or local laws dealing with a state or local problem justify allowing a system where the votes of some people are weighted more heavilly than others in national matters?
    There's your problem. We don't have a system where some peoples votes are weighted more heavilly than others in national matters. They are all equal.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

Page 12 of 20 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •