• 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!

Constitutional Convention - can it be done?

The Mark said:
They had to do that because state governments selecting senators created a huge incentive for gerrymandering and other such methods to ensure a specific party controlled that government, and thus the picked senator they wanted.

The senators represent states as a whole, by being elected by the entire state.

This is IMO better than a state government-selected method.
Click to expand...

corruption did take place in the appointing of senators, however the problem was solved in 1866 when the federal government, passed law making for the open and local voting for senators in state house legislatures

the problem retuned in 1893 when the law was repealed.

by electing the senator through a direct election, the corruption has been moved from a state level to a national level, were the problem is to difficult to solve, and now we have lobbying and government controlled by special interest groups.

what is ironic is...that people who call for more democracy are in fact getting more special interest control.......... a government ruled by an oligarchy

because democratic forms of government are very factious
 
Last edited:
A constitutional convention can happen, and the founding fathers would be shocked that their constitution was still enforced in the twenty-first century. As a American Civil War book reader, I am shocked that it lasted during and after the war.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
A constitutional convention can happen, and the founding fathers would be shocked that their constitution was still enforced in the twenty-first century. As a American Civil War book reader, I am shocked that it lasted during and after the war.
Click to expand...

the government the founders created a "mixed government republic"from the roman republic, which worked for about 500 yrs and only came down by the force of Caesar, i believed they expect it to last a very long time.

however America is no longer a true "mixed government republic" since 1913 and is more democratic now and moving towards failure, because democratic forms of government are unstable
 
Master PO said:
the government the founders created a "mixed government republic"from the roman republic, which worked for about 500 yrs and only came down by the force of Caesar, i believed they expect it to last a very long time.

however America is no longer a true "mixed government republic" since 1913 and is more democratic now and moving towards failure, because democratic forms of government are unstable
Click to expand...
As I understand it, the...ideal...of the government attempted was to channel the will of the people through representatives and systems that filtered out the extremes of things they feared a pure democracy would do.
 
The Mark said:
As I understand it, the...ideal...of the government attempted was to channel the will of the people through representatives and systems that filtered out the extremes of things they feared a pure democracy would do.
Click to expand...

the founders wanted to prevent collective law making, which is why the senate was not elected by the people, but instead the state governments.

democratic forms of government practice collectivism WHICH THE FOUNDERS SOUGHT TO AVOID

the house represents the rights of the people, the senate represents the powers of the state governments

the president presents the union, which is the peoples rights and the states powers combined, the reason we have the EC
 
Master PO said:
the founders wanted to prevent collective law making, which is why the senate was not elected by the people, but instead the state governments.

democratic forms of government practice collectivism WHICH THE FOUNDERS SOUGHT TO AVOID

the house represents the rights of the people, the senate represents the powers of the state governments

the president presents the union, which is the peoples rights and the states powers combined, the reason we have the EC
Click to expand...
The problem being that profit motives have corrupted the whole system.
 
The Mark said:
The problem being that profit motives have corrupted the whole system.
Click to expand...

thats correct!

but it is because the senate is no longer in the state governments hands.

before the 17th amendment, the senate could not be lobbied because senators were instructed how to vote by their states

once you made the senate elected by the people, you made the u.s. more democratic which the founders did not want, because democratic forms of government are very factious,...filled with special interest, they create collectivist legislation which causes governments to fail.
 
Master PO said:
thats correct!

but it is because the senate is no longer in the state governments hands.

before the 17th amendment, the senate could not be lobbied because senators were instructed how to vote by their states

once you made the senate elected by the people, you made the u.s. more democratic which the founders did not want, because democratic forms of government are very factious,...filled with special interest, they create collectivist legislation which causes governments to fail.
Click to expand...

I think it would still be corrupted even if that was changed.

The corruption would simply be applied more heavily to the state governments to ensure they picked the right people, along with the attack vectors already in use.

Or we could cut out the corruption by making elections publicly funded and banning most or all campaign donations of any sort.
 
The Mark said:
I think it would still be corrupted even if that was changed.

The corruption would simply be applied more heavily to the state governments to ensure they picked the right people, along with the attack vectors already in use.

Or we could cut out the corruption by making elections publicly funded and banning most or all campaign donations of any sort.
Click to expand...


today to lobby the senate you have to go to 1 central location and bribe and offer help with re-election to 100 senators

before the 17th, you would have to travel to all the states and lobby the state legislatures.........today that is 50 states and 7000 people
 
It can be done, but it will not turn out well for 99.9% of the population.

The drive to do this is coming from a handful of plutocrats and their media tools. Mark Kevin is one of the tools, so if you want to get a somewhat toned down version of what they would like to do, look there. Getting rid of the 17th so their gerrymandered/owned legislatures can pack the senate is a very high priority.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
It can be done, but it will not turn out well for 99.9% of the population.

The drive to do this is coming from a handful of plutocrats and their media tools. Mark Kevin is one of the tools, so if you want to get a somewhat toned down version of what they would like to do, look there. Getting rid of the 17th so their gerrymandered/owned legislatures can pack the senate is a very high priority.
Click to expand...

if this is directed at me, my aim to get rid of the 17th ..... is to keep the senate from being lobbied by corporations, the wealthy and foreign governments.
 
Master PO said:
if this is directed at me, my aim to get rid of the 17th ..... is to keep the senate from being lobbied by corporations, the wealthy and foreign governments.
Click to expand...

It was a response to the thread topic, not you individually.

I understand that we have the same goal, but differences as to what would best achieve that goal. I think removing the 17th allows the forces that have already corrupted many legislatures to corrupt the senate in a similar manner. You think it would have the opposite effect.

I would simply ask that you look at the people leading the way pushing for a CC, and note what else they are up to and who is funding them. It's harder to buy off a majority of voters in a state than it would be to buy off the legislature. And I think a lot of the legislatures at both the state and federal level are already owned by monied people/interests..

They haven't figured a way to directly gerrymander a state yet.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
It was a response to the thread topic, not you individually.

I understand that we have the same goal, but differences as to what would best achieve that goal. I think removing the 17th allows the forces that have already corrupted many legislatures to corrupt the senate in a similar manner. You think it would have the opposite effect.

I would simply ask that you look at the people leading the way pushing for a CC, and note what else they are up to and who is funding them. It's harder to buy off a majority of voters in a state than it would be to buy off the legislature. And I think a lot of the legislatures at both the state and federal level are already owned by monied people/interests..

They haven't figured a way to directly gerrymander a state yet.
Click to expand...

the senate is already corrupt by the 17th, we moved corruption from a state level to the national level, where it is much more difficult to get rid of.

corruption on a state level is more closer to the people and easier deal with and clean up.

my having the 17th senators are free agents to be bought and sold by special interest, they can vote for things which are not in there own states interest.

by having the 17th removed, the senators cannot be lobbied because the state governments make the decision of the vote, so special interest would have to lobby the legislatures of the 50 states and thats 7000 people
 
Master PO said:
the senate is already corrupt by the 17th, we moved corruption from a state level to the national level, where it is much more difficult to get rid of.

corruption on a state level is more closer to the people and easier deal with and clean up.

my having the 17th senators are free agents to be bought and sold by special interest, they can vote for things which are not in there own states interest.

by having the 17th removed, the senators cannot be lobbied because the state governments make the decision of the vote, so special interest would have to lobby the legislatures of the 50 states and thats 7000 people
Click to expand...

What it would do is make the senators of purple states either hard left or hard right, which would not reflect the moderate nature of the state's population. Look at PA, FL and NC among others. Those legislatures are far right because Republicans had the opportunity to do the gerrymandering. The legislature in NC is really crazy. The repub lost the governors race, so the legislature is trying everything it can to take power away from the governor.

No thanks.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I do not like the idea of holding a Constitutional Convention when half of the government is composed of far-right authoritarian criminals and the other half is composed of center-right authoritarian criminals.

No Constitutional Convention unless Dr. Guillotine is attending.
Click to expand...
Do the Russians get a vote?
 
Master PO said:
the government the founders created a "mixed government republic"from the roman republic, which worked for about 500 yrs and only came down by the force of Caesar, i believed they expect it to last a very long time.
Click to expand...

The Roman Republic was not a true democracy because it had the land rich society as Senators. True, state governments during that time (1770's) had a few were you had to be a land owner to be able to vote and be able to be a voting member in the government. Virginia, a state that had the most wealthy land owners, became the Mother of Presidents because of that practice of powerful land owners running for president. And, was common with the Confederate States of America, were Mississippi had the most wealth by electing Jefferson Davis as there only president. And still done today with President Trump.

however America is no longer a true "mixed government republic" since 1913 and is more democratic now and moving towards failure, because democratic forms of government are unstable
Click to expand...

What happen in 1913?
 
Atheist 2020 said:
The Roman Republic was not a true democracy because it had the land rich society as Senators. True, state governments during that time (1770's) had a few were you had to be a land owner to be able to vote and be able to be a voting member in the government. Virginia, a state that had the most wealthy land owners, became the Mother of Presidents because of that practice of powerful land owners running for president. And, was common with the Confederate States of America, were Mississippi had the most wealth by electing Jefferson Davis as there only president. And still done today with President Trump.



What happen in 1913?
Click to expand...


rome was a mixed government republic, and the founders created America based on that idea of mixed government.

mixed government divides power in law making so that 1 single entity[interest] does not have all the power to be tyrannical in the making of law

the senate was not of the people before 1913 its represented the state governments and that is how the states protected their powers and they served as the guardian of the constitution, checking the power of the federal government to keep it within the confines of the constitution.

in 1913 the senate was made to be elected by the people, the same as the house, this makes the senate now a democracy which it was never meant to be, so now the house and the senate are of the same interest, this leads to collectivism in law making and you get laws created which leads to corruption the violation of rights and the usurpation of state powers.

the founders say the people can vote collectively however they are barred in that collective capacity from making law in american government, because the senate is in the state government hands
 
Master PO said:
the senate was not of the people before 1913 its represented the state governments and that is how the states protected their powers and they served as the guardian of the constitution, checking the power of the federal government to keep it within the confines of the constitution.

in 1913 the senate was made to be elected by the people, the same as the house, this makes the senate now a democracy which it was never meant to be, so now the house and the senate are of the same interest, this leads to collectivism in law making and you get laws created which leads to corruption the violation of rights and the usurpation of state powers.
Click to expand...

Remember the Lincoln - Douglas debate of 1858. Lincoln won the popular vote, but lose the senate seat to Senator Douglas as the state government was Democratic after the election. If Lincoln won in 1858, I do not see him running for president in 1860. If Lincoln won in 1858, the Democratic senators would have understood Lincoln better before he might have run for president in 1860. The American Civil War happen because people misunderstood Lincoln in the first place. I support the people electing their United States senator.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
Remember the Lincoln - Douglas debate of 1858. Lincoln won the popular vote, but lose the senate seat to Senator Douglas as the state government was Democratic after the election. If Lincoln won in 1858, I do not see him running for president in 1860. If Lincoln won in 1858, the Democratic senators would have understood Lincoln better before he might have run for president in 1860. The American Civil War happen because people misunderstood Lincoln in the first place. I support the people electing their United States senator.
Click to expand...

well we can disagree then i support the founders in their idea of a mixed government, to keep faction out of law making and to prevent collectivism
 
Master PO said:
well we can disagree then i support the founders in their idea of a mixed government, to keep faction out of law making and to prevent collectivism
Click to expand...

I want you to do Wikipedia search on the the American flag. The flag of the British East India Tea Company is very much like the American Grand Union flag, and then into the Betsy Ross flag with thirteen stars. Our founding fathers, wanted to be international businessmen and make our national government as a business tool to make wealth. Nothing more nothing less.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
I want you to do Wikipedia search on the the American flag. The flag of the British East India Tea Company is very much like the American Grand Union flag, and then into the Betsy Ross flag with thirteen stars. Our founding fathers, wanted to be international businessmen and make our national government as a business tool to make wealth. Nothing more nothing less.
Click to expand...

the government is federal, with national powers

a national government is a unitary state, america is federal state
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom