• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Amend the Constitution to eliminate the Senate?

Should the Constitution be amended to eliminate the Senate?

  • Total voters
    62
Kal'Stang said:
Perhaps you didn't read my previous posts?
Click to expand...
Here are your own words from your own post 120



We don't have a system where some peoples votes are weighted more heavilly than others in national matters. They are all equal.
Click to expand...

As pointed out to you

1- the election of a President of the United States meets your own qualifier of NATIONAL MATTERS.
2- verifiable evidence was provided to you showing that all votes in this matter ARE NOT EQUAL.
3- Are you backing down from your own statement that I just reproduced for you?
 
ernst barkmann said:
it is you who want only direct power in the hands of the people...........that is democracy.........and its majority rule.

majority rule leads to mob rule......history has proven that.
Click to expand...

Then it should be easy for you to show us with verifiable evidence where the majority voted to remove the rights of a minority. Please do.
 
Yes, I would eliminate or change the apportioning of representatives to the Senate and the Electoral College because currently they both give too much power to states with lower populations. Democracy isn't perfect, but it is the best and fairest way to make policy decisions. I would also end all official recognition of political parties in the legislatures and in the election process.
 
ernst barkmann said:
even you cannot be this clueless, i am discussing the move towards much deeper majority rule now, and what its effects will be in the future...
Click to expand...

and you base this on the realities of the past.................... but you are powerless to cite any for us. That is very telling.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Wrong. Mob rule is just that. Mob rule. It is not dependent on neither the right nor the left. I find it interesting that you think that it is being used to insult the left as indicated by your words of "right wing pejorative".
Click to expand...

Iagree that mob rule is indeed mob rule. And it is not the majority exercising their right to vote and win elections which is being disparaged in this thread as mob rule.
 
American said:
This shows haymarket just bypasses and ignores the answers he doesn't like, and continues on making the same claim as though no one has responded. francois60 actually gave him a pretty good answer, but that won't help haymarket justify ignorantly restructuring our government.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you simply provide the evidence of the majority using the vote to take away the rights of the minority then and prove the point?

No such evidence was provided by francois60.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Wrong. Mob rule is just that. Mob rule. It is not dependent on neither the right nor the left. I find it interesting that you think that it is being used to insult the left as indicated by your words of "right wing pejorative".
Click to expand...

The right wing tends to be less democratic and more authoritarian than the left, so it was not an unreasonable assumption.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am stating what mob rule is, democracy means majority rule....and sooner or later that majority will turn on the minority, and that is from history.
Click to expand...

Although not always applied perfectly, our constitution has many protections for the rights of minorities. We also have courts empowered to insure those constitutional protections for minorities are applied.
 
haymarket said:
Then why don't you simply provide the evidence of the majority using the vote to take away the rights of the minority then and prove the point?

No such evidence was provided by francois60.
Click to expand...

Why should I provide you any evidence, you're the proponent of change. Prove it's needed.
 
haymarket said:
Then it should be easy for you to show us with verifiable evidence where the majority voted to remove the rights of a minority. Please do.
Click to expand...

i will be most happy to!

we will use the ACA, becuase america has moved closer to democracy with the 17th amendment, this has given us majority rule ...how?

becuase with the 17th amendment the ACA was pushed using only the interest of the people, and not the interest too of the states, ............. the state legislatures have no power to stop.

however after the law was passed 26 states sued to have ACA ruled unconstitutional.

if the 17th amendment had not existed, those state legislatures would have directed there senators to vote NO , for the ACA, and it would never have become law.

26 x 2 senators is 52 senators...it would never have passed, because the states interested would have be represented in congress, and prevented the majority rule of the people, from getting ACA law in place.

the whole idea of a bi-Carmel congress, was to give power to the people.......... and the states, and have both of their interest represented.
 
American said:
Why should I provide you any evidence, you're the proponent of change. Prove it's needed.
Click to expand...

Because you took up for somebody else here in 144 and claimed they had provided evidence - by your own claim evidence you considered pretty good ..... and yet a search through the posts produced NO SUCH EVIDENCE.

that is why you should provide it as you made a claim and then are impotent to substantiate it.
 
haymarket said:
Because you took up for somebody else here in 144 and claimed they had provided evidence - by your own claim evidence you considered pretty good ..... and yet a search through the posts produced NO SUCH EVIDENCE.

that is why you should provide it as you made a claim and then are impotent to substantiate it.
Click to expand...

I just looked this stuff up using Google, and it is amazingly easy. It's almost as easy as posting useless **** on a forum, so I think you can handle it. You know it's not required by rule, but most people around here expect you to at least try to educate yourself a little. Please do that, and then get back to us. Just so no one says I'm without mercy, here's a start.

FEDERALIST No. 62 | Left Justified
 
American said:
I just looked this stuff up using Google, and it is amazingly easy. It's almost as easy as posting useless **** on a forum, so I think you can handle it. You know it's not required by rule, but most people around here expect you to at least try to educate yourself a little. Please do that, and then get back to us. Just so no one says I'm without mercy, here's a start.

FEDERALIST No. 62 | Left Justified
Click to expand...

Why would you post this so called "evidence" when it is actually not evidence of any kind which was asked for?

Not only are you moving the goal posts, you are trying to move them to a different arena in a different city and then playing a different sport altogether there.

Again - you chimed in when another poster was challenged to present evidence that they were right about the majority using the vote to take away the rights of the minority. So where is that evidence askd for in my post #140 and then you posted directlyafter in 144?
again - here was my challenge which so far has gone unanswered


then please answer my question about when in US history the majority voted to take away rights from the minority?


Your Federalist Paper stuff fails to answer that.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Why would you post this so called "evidence" when it is actually not evidence of any kind which was asked for?

Not only are you moving the goal posts, you are trying to move them to a different arena in a different city and then playing a different sport altogether there.

Again - you chimed in when another poster was challenged to present evidence that they were right about the majority using the vote to take away the rights of the minority. So where is that evidence askd for in my post #140 and then you posted directlyafter in 144?
again - here was my challenge which so far has gone unanswered


then please answer my question about when in US history the majority voted to take away rights from the minority?


Your Federalist Paper stuff fails to answer that.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a personal problem.
 
ernst barkmann said:
as long as the people elect their senators, america is closer to democracy, and that is something the founders did not want, ....becuase democracy is full of faction/special interest.......which is destroying america
Click to expand...

Thinking on this, it seems outside of the obvious, that allowing for direct elections of Senators actually decreased public participation in the electoral process. It made State leg obsolete in way and severed the connection (and the check and balance)of the US Senator from the State they were sent to Washington to represent. Which in turn made interest in State legislative elections less important and/or interesting in the eyes of many voters.

Bringing back State Leg appointed Senators would or should rather bring back a more keen interest in State legislator elections as whom they would appoint to the Senate would probably be one of the most important duties they'd have while in office. At least for the time being until a more proper balance of power is restored to the States.
 
Hard Truth said:
Although not always applied perfectly, our constitution has many protections for the rights of minorities. We also have courts empowered to insure those constitutional protections for minorities are applied.
Click to expand...


..James Madison states, that the senate is the first bulwark against tyranny of the majority, it is the court that is the second bulwark,...that first bulwark has been removed with the 17th.

and the court, which is supposed to be non partisan, is...of coarse partisan.
 
ChezC3 said:
Thinking on this, it seems outside of the obvious, that allowing for direct elections of Senators actually decreased public participation in the electoral process. It made State leg obsolete in way and severed the connection (and the check and balance)of the US Senator from the State they were sent to Washington to represent. Which in turn made interest in State legislative elections less important and/or interesting in the eyes of many voters.

Bringing back State Leg appointed Senators would or should rather bring back a more keen interest in State legislator elections as whom they would appoint to the Senate would probably be one of the most important duties they'd have while in office. At least for the time being until a more proper balance of power is restored to the States.
Click to expand...


yes, by electing your state legislature, the people are making an indirect vote for their senators, and giving states power to keep the federal government in check, so they cannot place mandates on states, and prevent majority rule.
 
ernst barkmann said:
yes, by electing your state legislature, the people are making an indirect vote for their senators, and giving states power to keep the federal government in check, so they cannot place mandates on states, and prevent majority rule.
Click to expand...

I would say to get this ball rolling we would have to find a State which is most susceptible to this line of reasoning and push forth a State legislative agenda which would challenge and find creative ways to circumvent the 17th Amendment. Obviously the troubles which brought about the reform in the first place would have to be addressed, the bribery, a default measure for vacant seats, et al. But it is an idea which should be seriously considered and a serious attempt at a counter-reformation should be made.
 
ChezC3 said:
I would say to get this ball rolling we would have to find a State which is most susceptible to this line of reasoning and push forth a State legislative agenda which would challenge and find creative ways to circumvent the 17th Amendment. Obviously the troubles which brought about the reform in the first place would have to be addressed, the bribery, a default measure for vacant seats, et al. But it is an idea which should be seriously considered and a serious attempt at a counter-reformation should be made.
Click to expand...

Madison states it is impossible to remove every bit of faction in government, ,but it is possible to limit it, by spreading out powers of government, and this was done with republican government before the 17th.

by having the 17th, this moves us closer to democracy and puts power into one set of hands, were it can be tyrannical, .................Madison states its very factious

"The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter-- federalist 10

in federalist 10 you see, Madison chooses republican government, ....... not democratic government......becuase it has less faction/special interest
 
ernst barkmann said:
are you asking on a state or federal level ..........or both?
Click to expand...

Ignore that ****, he doesn't have a single clue. The thread is about rid the Congress of the Senate, and he wants you to prove why they should be kept. Don't fall for that trick, make him prove why they should be removed. He can't, because he's never proven a goddam thing since he joined this board. He's a sidestepper, who never entered a debate head on, because he can't. Go follow him in the gun forum, pathetic.
 
I voted no, but the 17th should be repealed...
 
Lukas105 said:
The 17th is fine, we just need term limits.
Click to expand...

Respectively, I disagree. The Senate was created to represent the individual States, not a party or communal ideal...
 
American said:
Ignore that ****, he doesn't have a single clue. The thread is about rid the Congress of the Senate, and he wants you to prove why they should be kept. Don't fall for that trick, make him prove why they should be removed. He can't, because he's never proven a goddam thing since he joined this board. He's a sidestepper, who never entered a debate head on, because he can't. Go follow him in the gun forum, pathetic.
Click to expand...

well i have an example for him for both federal and state, ...he does not bother me.

i am still waiting for him to openly challenge me, on Madison creating the foundation of the constutution months before the constitutional convention.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom