the best way to do it is to take partisanship out of the equation. my solution would do that, and would also eliminate a massive conflict of interest.
Keep the House and the Senate and strip the functions of the federal government back to what was originally intended and leave the rest to the states. Different areas would end up with different laws based on what the people wanted. If you wanted wide open and very few laws there would be the plains. If you prefer more civil engineering there is northeast, and there is no passport requirement between states. I'm pretty happy with how things work in Georgia.
If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.
everybody complains about partisan politics, but think about this please,
what if in the next national election, not one Democrat or Republican gets
any vote at all, ALL of the votes go to the other parties ... Vote for the
NOT a Democrat & NOT a Republican ..... Can U Dig it?
our nation was first to have only a house, however the smaller states complained that bigger states would get more representation in our government.. ...so a compromise was reached.....Connecticut Compromise
the house was created to be a voice of the people, or the people's interest....the house is a democracy.
the senate was created to give states [state legislatures] a voice in our government, or the states interest ...it was created as an aristocracy, not becuase of being anything noble, but because senators were appointed by the [state legislators] and worked for those [state legislatures] because the politicians who appointed people to the senate, would appoint those with political skills.
our government was designed to give half direct power 50% to the people and half direct power 50% to the states, ...for any legislative bill to pass congress the interest of the people and the interest of the states have to come together and be represented for any bill to pass.
state legislatures are elected by the people and therefore the people are electing there senator, by what is known as an indirect vote.
with the senate in the hands of the states and not the people, this stops majority rule from taking place, becuase the house and senate are in different hands, and have different interest.
again this is to stop majority rule, and any collectivist activity from becoming law, as stated by Madison in federalist 63
by the 17th amendment passing ..it has taken state interest out of our government and given the senate over to the people's interest, now our congress both sides... are only in the hands of the people, or majority rule, and power being in only one set of hands is tyranny even if it is in the hands of the people only, ...says Madison in federalist 47.........this has also opened up lobbying of our u.s. senate by the rich and powerful.............before the 17th,......senators could not be lobbied.
since we have majority rule in congress, you see government infringing on rights of the people, government growing and stepping outside it delegated powers, because their in no longer states interest .......to keep the federal government in check...as in checks and balances.
with the 17th amendment america has moved closed to democracy........."democracy is the most vile form of government"--James Madison
repeal the 17th amendment, and return to the government of the founders, ....................republican government, mixed government, limited government, responsible government.
Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.
The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained
From the New York Packet.
Friday, January 18, 1788.
To the People of the State of New York:
THE SECOND point to be examined is, whether the [ constitutional] convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
Last edited by Master PO; 10-16-13 at 01:59 AM.
Anti-Democracy advocate, Mixed government is the only good government
THE second point to be examined is, whether the [constitutional ]convention were authorized to frame and propose this mixed Constitution.
I voted no, but after thinking on this considerably I do believe direct elections of Senators should end and their position be determined by State Legislatures. I think if we get back to setting things up the way things were founded we've a better shot of returning closer to the spirit and intent of the Founders.
This one lady from California moved up here and bought a piece of property out in the semi-boondocks. Before buying this property she could see what her neighbors yard was like, cars parked in the yard that were being worked on over many years and cars just sitting there junking out. Yet she bought the property next to him anyways. She then petitioned the Town Fathers for a new law which tried to ban all but 2 vehicles per property because her neighbor's (who'd lived on his property all his life) land was "unsightly". The effects of the ban she tried to implement (and failed) would have made it to where farmers who literally have at least half a dozen vehicles to farm their land would not have been able to do so. All because she didn't like the look of her neighbors yard....which she had a choice of moving next to or not.
Point of this is that different areas require different laws and regulations. It might be a fine law to have in San Diego, but not in Bonners Ferry. The point of our Senate is to prevent one State from dictating what is/isn't allowed in some other state where circumstances are different. IE give equal footing to all states.
Now, if you want to combat corruption a fine way to go about it is to stop lobbying groups from using money to buy out politicians. The way to do that is to limit exactly how much our politicans family can make on a yearly basis. Tie it directly to the average median income of their respective States citizens. Anything over that is not allowed and if they do happen to make more than that then they are forced to donate that extra bit to a random (chosen by computer) charity on a nation wide list. And yes, their bank total should be posted on a specific website dedicated to such on a daily basis. Add another restriction of not being allowed to be employed at any major corporation which employs more than 50 people for 5 years and you've pretty much eliminated the corruption caused by lobby groups.
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