• 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!

Repeal the 17th Amendment?

Helix said:
Thanks for the wall of text, but firing the pandemic response team and defunding Predict before a pandemic and then having a rally and breaking with the WHO during a pandemic is a level of dumb that Tweety is going to have to answer for at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

And despite this, it is the Democratic Governor of NY whose response (though praised by an foolish media) has produced the worst outcomes by any honest and objective measure.

WHO is a group of fools in the pocket of one of the most evil regimes on the planet.

I wonder if the pandemic response team would have crticized all the democrats who deemed blocking flights from China as "racist" as dangers fools for failing to support faster and even more drastic clamping down of our borders.
 
Rich2018 said:
And you wonder why the RW is regarded as rabid extremists, unable to construct a coherent argument.
Click to expand...

I am the only one who actually presented a coherent argument on the topic. I am not some thoughtless reactionary who insists that the actual PURPOSE of a particular office has no bearing on who should be selecting the office holders.

Your position is not an actual argument, reasoned or otherwise, it is a statement of rather stupid opinion devoid of any actual reasoning.

Should voting be restricted to citizens, or should anyone who happens to live in an area be permitted to vote for those representing that area georgraphically?
 
Marcus1124 said:
And despite this, it is the Democratic Governor of NY whose response (though praised by an foolish media) has produced the worst outcomes by any honest and objective measure.

WHO is a group of fools in the pocket of one of the most evil regimes on the planet.

I wonder if the pandemic response team would have crticized all the democrats who deemed blocking flights from China as "racist" as dangers fools for failing to support faster and even more drastic clamping down of our borders.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the propaganda, but I gave at the office. Big time.
 
Marcus1124 said:
I am the only one who actually presented a coherent argument on the topic.
Click to expand...

:lamo

If only anyone, including you, knew what it was



I am not some thoughtless reactionary who insists that the actual PURPOSE of a particular office has no bearing on who should be selecting the office holders.
Click to expand...

The words you'd expect from a thoughtless reactionary


Your position is not an actual argument, reasoned or otherwise, it is a statement of rather stupid opinion devoid of any actual reasoning.
Click to expand...

Says some guy off the internet who has only the tenuous of grasp of the English language

Having made the fundamental mistake of treating incorrect opinion as some kind of true/false fact, I would rather say that your qualifications to pass judgement, on the relative strengths of any given argument, are flawed at best


Should voting be restricted to citizens, or should anyone who happens to live in an area be permitted to vote for those representing that area georgraphically?
Click to expand...

IMO, ny citizen or legal resident should be not only permitted to vote, in the geographical area in which the reside, but it should also be a mandatory duty. And yes I know passing a law to this effect would probably require a constitutional amendment which would also compel states to register everyone.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes, the weight of opinion of constitutional scholars is the the Constitution is not dissoluble, meaning a state cannot unilaterally leave
does this imply there is some disagreement from a minority?

The founders understood that the Constitution might need to be amended and so made provision for this to happen. No provision was made for a state to leave the union
The Constitution was formed as a contract between the states and I don’t know of a contract that has no path to exit. Is there any known conversation from the convention that every state knew this contract wouldn’t ever let them exit?

(the states could of course pass an amendment creating a mechanism by which a state or states could leave but in its current form, the Constitution prohibits secession)

The man whose comments on this have been the basis for subsequent generations of constitutional scholars, is former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, who commented on whether secession was legal:


Is Secession Legal? | The American Conservative
Click to expand...

Most comments above in red. And I thank you for the link, it was a lot to digest. You’ve given me much to think about and I might be changing my view after hearing your case. lets pick this up again once i can read more on the topic, and thanks for explaining this issue well.

One interesting piece I noticed in the article was it’s reference to the pledge of allegiance, and that brings up a new question for you, are we a democracy or a republic?
 
supremeLaw said:
does this imply there is some disagreement from a minority?
Click to expand...

I was being delicate
If there is such a minority, I am not aware of them


The Constitution was formed as a contract between the states and I don’t know of a contract that has no path to exit. Is there any known conversation from the convention that every state knew this contract wouldn’t ever let them exit?
Click to expand...

No, that would be a confederation
The union was the states agreeing to create a country of which they would just be a part of


Most comments above in red. And I thank you for the link, it was a lot to digest. You’ve given me much to think about and I might be changing my view after hearing your case. lets pick this up again once i can read more on the topic, and thanks for explaining this issue well.
Click to expand...

Well thank you for your thoughtful request

I think the lack of an exist clause in the Constitution is telling - it's not there because the founders believed it was not needed

The old USSR had a constitution with an exist clause as does the EU today

So, IMO, if you don't provide for such a contingency, you're saying that one cannot ever come to exist.


One interesting piece I noticed in the article was it’s reference to the pledge of allegiance, and that brings up a new question for you, are we a democracy or a republic?
Click to expand...

The USA is a Republic

Specifically it is a Constitutional Republic (and there are plenty of examples of non-constitutional republics) which means it is ALSO a Democracy.

The word "Democracy" seems to have been demonized by the RW who are quick to use a straw man by characterizing it as some kind of politics of the lynch mob
Nothing is further from the truth. Modern Democracy is know as "Representative Democracy", the people don't vote on issues, rather they elect people who do (though this doesn't exclude the occasional plebiscite)

And really the only difference between a Monarchy and a Republic, is how the head of state is chosen.
 
Rich2018 said:
The USA is a Republic

Specifically it is a Constitutional Republic (and there are plenty of examples of non-constitutional republics) which means it is ALSO a Democracy.

The word "Democracy" seems to have been demonized by the RW who are quick to use a straw man by characterizing it as some kind of politics of the lynch mob
Nothing is further from the truth. Modern Democracy is know as "Representative Democracy", the people don't vote on issues, rather they elect people who do (though this doesn't exclude the occasional plebiscite)

And really the only difference between a Monarchy and a Republic, is how the head of state is chosen.
Click to expand...

The RW demonization aside, isn’t the USA a constitutional republic with some elements of democratic processes to decide select outcomes? Certainly there are many terms which can describe the usa form of government, some might call it an oligarchy too. But at the core, I believe we agree that the USA is a constitutional republic. And yet if you polled the American people the vast majority of citizens would likely say democracy and not republic. If you counted the amount of times media (tv, print, whatever) or politicians spoke they word republic or democracy, the final tally would heavily favor democracy. Why do you think that is? It isn’t that hard to include constitutional republic in school text books so this lack of public knowledge wouldnt be present. So, as you’ve had some good insight before, I’m wondering if you’d speculate on this topic.
 
Publius said:
Would there be any benefit to repealing the 17th Amendment?
Click to expand...
No, but thanks for asking.


Would having Senators chosen by the state legislatures be similar to term limits?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not.


We know that the power of the incumbent results in 87% of the same members of Congress getting reelected over and over but would a state legislature hold Senators more accountable than the people of the states?
Click to expand...
Nope.


Would people even care if this power was given back to the states?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Good talk.
 
supremeLaw said:
The RW demonization aside, isn’t the USA a constitutional republic with some elements of democratic processes to decide select outcomes? Certainly there are many terms which can describe the usa form of government, some might call it an oligarchy too. But at the core, I believe we agree that the USA is a constitutional republic. And yet if you polled the American people the vast majority of citizens would likely say democracy and not republic. If you counted the amount of times media (tv, print, whatever) or politicians spoke they word republic or democracy, the final tally would heavily favor democracy. Why do you think that is? It isn’t that hard to include constitutional republic in school text books so this lack of public knowledge wouldnt be present. So, as you’ve had some good insight before, I’m wondering if you’d speculate on this topic.
Click to expand...

No, if you prefix "republic" or "monarchy" with the word "constitutional" it means it's a democracy

Now the kind of democracy we use is called "Representative Democracy" - that is we elect people to represent us in the legislature. It's important to note that they are indeed representatives and not delegates.
ie: they vote how they see fit in what the perceive to be our best interests. If they do not, then they are described as "corrupt"
Whereas a delegate's vote is fixed by the people who sent him/her and they can't alter it

Now there is such a thing as "direct democracy" (often called "pure democracy") where every decision is based of a popular vote. In such cases a legislature is not required. However it is an impractical (to the point of impossible) way of governing any organization bigger than a workers collective factory or farm
A rock group of 4 members might operate this way for example with every decision taken jointly between all band members

Now that is not to say that direct democracy has no place in a representative democracy and many, single-issue, non political votes are referred to the people - for example in my county a few years ago, the people went to vote if alcohol could be sold on a Sunday
This is called a "plebiscite"

A well known plebiscite recently was in the UK - the famous "BREXIT" vote

Anyone who's actually studied politics knows these terms and there are a lot of ignorant people on TV that use the Republic label to make the USA sound superior - it is not

Just think what Canada (a constitutional monarchy and therefore a representative democracy) would have to do to become a constitutional republic.
It has nothing to do with having a constitution. The Netherlands has a monarchy and a constitution, ancient Rome used to be a republic with no written constitution.

The answer is simply have their head of state elected and not appointed by birthright
A non-constitutional republic might elect its president from a small minority - Argentina under the 1970's Junta was like this.


I hope this is clearer now.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, if you prefix "republic" or "monarchy" with the word "constitutional" it means it's a democracy

Now the kind of democracy we use is called "Representative Democracy" - that is we elect people to represent us in the legislature. It's important to note that they are indeed representatives and not delegates.
ie: they vote how they see fit in what the perceive to be our best interests. If they do not, then they are described as "corrupt"
Whereas a delegate's vote is fixed by the people who sent him/her and they can't alter it

Now there is such a thing as "direct democracy" (often called "pure democracy") where every decision is based of a popular vote. In such cases a legislature is not required. However it is an impractical (to the point of impossible) way of governing any organization bigger than a workers collective factory or farm
A rock group of 4 members might operate this way for example with every decision taken jointly between all band members

Now that is not to say that direct democracy has no place in a representative democracy and many, single-issue, non political votes are referred to the people - for example in my county a few years ago, the people went to vote if alcohol could be sold on a Sunday
This is called a "plebiscite"

A well known plebiscite recently was in the UK - the famous "BREXIT" vote

Anyone who's actually studied politics knows these terms and there are a lot of ignorant people on TV that use the Republic label to make the USA sound superior - it is not

Just think what Canada (a constitutional monarchy and therefore a representative democracy) would have to do to become a constitutional republic.
It has nothing to do with having a constitution. The Netherlands has a monarchy and a constitution, ancient Rome used to be a republic with no written constitution.

The answer is simply have their head of state elected and not appointed by birthright
A non-constitutional republic might elect its president from a small minority - Argentina under the 1970's Junta was like this.


I hope this is clearer now.
Click to expand...

Yes - somewhat.
 
MamboDervish said:
Yes - somewhat.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

A Right Winger might tell you that a republic means that government is based on LAW - well that only refers to Constitutional Republics and guess what, it also applies to Constitutional Monarchies also.
 
Vadinho said:
If getting rid of the EC means we are no longer a constitutional republic, then bring it on. I could care less about what made sense in 1790. Right now we are in a gigantic mess and the number one reason is our constitutional republic. When a man like Trump can be elected over the objections of the majority, then we are doomed. When a single Senator from a piddly little state can stop all legislation, we are doomed. When a Senate Majority leader can wield so much power that he takes away the right of a POTUS to replace a Supreme, we are doomed. Sorry but Kentucky should not have that much power over the rest of us. I say scrap the whole damn thing and start over. This experiment is ended.
Click to expand...

It’s unfortunate when a people are so poorly educated on the presidential election and make comments about it. The current president won the majority, he wouldn’t be in office if he didn’t.

The poor choice of language to speak negatively about a state based on size is the reason we have a constitutional republic. Those states wouldn’t have joined the contract if not for some assurances that large states wouldn’t walk all over them, which is exactly how you sound and exactly what those states feared.

We agree that the senate majorly leader shouldn’t, and actually doesn’t have the power they claim. But a president doesn’t and has never replaced a supreme court justice. You appear uneducated on this topic when you express the misconception that a president replaces justices.
 
Rich2018 said:
No, if you prefix "republic" or "monarchy" with the word "constitutional" it means it's a democracy
that can’t be true. The constitution sets the framework for the republic or monarchy when it describes such a form of government. The constitution could say many things but doesn’t have to set up any majority rule aspects. The constitution is what limits and defines the type of republic, but that doesn’t make them synonymous.
Now the kind of democracy we use is called "Representative Democracy" - that is we elect people to represent us in the legislature. It's important to note that they are indeed representatives and not delegates.
ie: they vote how they see fit in what the perceive to be our best interests. If they do not, then they are described as "corrupt"
Whereas a delegate's vote is fixed by the people who sent him/her and they can't alter it
there are many aspects of our government that aren’t handled via representatives nor majorly rule democracy, how do you account for those? A representative democracy doesn’t limit nor define specific government powers. A constitutional republic does, which is what was created.
Now there is such a thing as "direct democracy" (often called "pure democracy") where every decision is based of a popular vote. In such cases a legislature is not required. However it is an impractical (to the point of impossible) way of governing any organization bigger than a workers collective factory or farm
A rock group of 4 members might operate this way for example with every decision taken jointly between all band members

Now that is not to say that direct democracy has no place in a representative democracy and many, single-issue, non political votes are referred to the people - for example in my county a few years ago, the people went to vote if alcohol could be sold on a Sunday
This is called a "plebiscite"

A well known plebiscite recently was in the UK - the famous "BREXIT" vote

Anyone who's actually studied politics knows these terms and there are a lot of ignorant people on TV that use the Republic label to make the USA sound superior - it is not
Most people on tv use the word democracy, but the founders never used that word. So who’s ignorant about the construction of the nation, those who created it or people on tv?
Just think what Canada (a constitutional monarchy and therefore a representative democracy) would have to do to become a constitutional republic.
It has nothing to do with having a constitution. The Netherlands has a monarchy and a constitution, ancient Rome used to be a republic with no written constitution.
Of course there can be a republic without a constitution. But the USA constitution is what defines and limits the republican form of federal government which was created. Which is why the USA differs from Canada, Rome, and others
The answer is simply have their head of state elected and not appointed by birthright
A non-constitutional republic might elect its president from a small minority - Argentina under the 1970's Junta was like this.


I hope this is clearer now.
Click to expand...

It’s not quite clear. It appears you’re going out of your way to use the word democracy, yet that term isn’t used to describe the government created in the constitution.
 
supremeLaw said:
It’s unfortunate when a people are so poorly educated on the presidential election and make comments about it. The current president won the majority, he wouldn’t be in office if he didn’t.

The poor choice of language to speak negatively about a state based on size is the reason we have a constitutional republic. Those states wouldn’t have joined the contract if not for some assurances that large states wouldn’t walk all over them, which is exactly how you sound and exactly what those states feared.

We agree that the senate majorly leader shouldn’t, and actually doesn’t have the power they claim. But a president doesn’t and has never replaced a supreme court justice. You appear uneducated on this topic when you express the misconception that a president replaces justices.
Click to expand...

Oh please spare me the lesson on constitutional history and law, I know full well that the document was created to get the approval of the smaller states in order to ratify it and create a new republic. That was done to secure the votes of the first 13 states some of which were slave states, some were religious havens and some were economic powerhouses. That was in 1789. Now 37 states later, that system has created massive inequities of power that give these political entities and the citizens that live in them incredible power over the majorities in much larger states. Every state that was added to the original 13 were political decisions made to further the interests of someone or group that held power in that area at a point in time. The fact that we allowed states to be created in remote areas with hardly any people in them tells us more about the wishes of the economic powers then it does some ideal borrowed from the Greeks or Romans. Today, a vote for President in Wyoming is worth far more then a vote given in California. We have had enough of this nonsense and its time to fix it. As for this POTUS, he lost the popular vote by almost three million US citizens. He won the EC count by less then 100k votes across four states. It is time for us to decide whether or not we want a democracy or we want to be ruled by a minority.
 
Vadinho said:
that system has created massive inequities of power that give these political entities and the citizens that live in them incredible power over the majorities in much larger states.
Click to expand...

You oppose the protection of the minority? The federal government we live under is designed to protect, in some aspects, the minority voice. I believe this to be a great system, and not sure why people want to force the minority to have less of a voice, as you’re suggesting.


Vadinho said:
Today, a vote for President in Wyoming is worth far more then a vote given in California.
Click to expand...

Vadinho said:
he lost the popular vote
Click to expand...

I thought you said you understood the formation of the government. It appears not, for the second time. People don’t elect the president. This quote proves your lack of knowledge on how the usa elects the Federal executive branch.
 
supremeLaw said:
You oppose the protection of the minority? The federal government we live under is designed to protect, in some aspects, the minority voice. I believe this to be a great system, and not sure why people want to force the minority to have less of a voice, as you’re suggesting.






I thought you said you understood the formation of the government. It appears not, for the second time. People don’t elect the president. This quote proves your lack of knowledge on how the usa elects the Federal executive branch.
Click to expand...

I can see you simply do not listen or care to comprehend anyone's opinion so this is likely the last time I respond to your incessant repetitions. I acknowledged that fact that the current system is stacked in favor of states rather then citizens. I also acknowledged that the President is elected by the Electoral College. Yet here you claim that I do not grasp the fact that people do not elect the President as if you are winning an argument with a deaf, blind mute. Sorry buddy, I won't take the bait. We will change our system one way or another or it will die by itself. The time for small white states to rule over the rest of us is ending. It may not happen in my time but if we went from using gay marriage as a weapon against Kerry in 2004 to allowing gay marriage a few years later, anything can happen and happen quickly. If Trump wins another EC election yet loses the popular vote by an even wider margin, the EC is doomed. We simply will not stand for it any longer.
 
supremeLaw said:
It’s not quite clear. It appears you’re going out of your way to use the word democracy, yet that term isn’t used to describe the government created in the constitution.
Click to expand...


I'm using the word "democracy" to show that the USA is indeed one

To address your points:

that can’t be true. The constitution sets the framework for the republic or monarchy when it describes such a form of government. The constitution could say many things but doesn’t have to set up any majority rule aspects. The constitution is what limits and defines the type of republic, but that doesn’t make them synonymous.
Click to expand...

Prefixing the word "constitutional" before "republic" or "monarchy" doesn't mean they have a written constitution but it means that their constitution is defined in some way (usually a series of laws) which have the popular support of the people (or at least a large majority of them)
It also means that the government abide by those laws / written constitution
And since they must have broad public support, the country is a democracy (as previously stated, a Representative Democracy)

If a country has a written constitution, it could say a lot of things like if a king/queen or president is head of state, the requirements to pass a law, how many legislators there should be and into how many houses of the legislature. It would even determine the requirements to change the constitution, which might be 2/3, 99% or a simple majority in the national legislature

So unless a population (willingly) supports a constitution that strips them of any say in government, a Constitutional Republic (or Monarchy) is therefore a Democracy


there are many aspects of our government that aren’t handled via representatives nor majorly rule democracy, how do you account for those? A representative democracy doesn’t limit nor define specific government powers. A constitutional republic does, which is what was created.
Click to expand...

Of course. Unless impeached a US president is granted a 4 year period to rule (subject to the law)
The executive and judiciary are not democratic branches. The people don't elect Supreme Court justices nor do the elect the other members of the executive, eg secretary of state, attorney general etc
Representative Democracy elects only the head of the executive (and his VP) and the members of the legislature). Directly electing cabinet members is basically impossible for an executive to work as it really needs to speak with one voice
The VP Btw has no official function other than speaker of the Senate

The same is true of other Democracies - the head of the government will appoint his/her subordinates


Most people on tv use the word democracy, but the founders never used that word. So who’s ignorant about the construction of the nation, those who created it or people on tv?
Click to expand...

I think the founders were not as politically aware as we are now
For them, a Republic meant a Democracy.
Non-constitutional republics didn't exists so the term Constitutional Republic didn't either

It was taken as a given, that a republic would be responsive to the will of the people

What are the first three words of the US Constitution: WE THE PEOPLE

If that doesn't give the game away for you that the USA is a democracy, nothing will

(a government regularly picked by the people, is by definition a democracy, specifically a Representative Democracy)


Of course there can be a republic without a constitution. But the USA constitution is what defines and limits the republican form of federal government which was created. Which is why the USA differs from Canada, Rome, and others
Click to expand...

Every country has a constitution - ie: how the government of that country is constituted

What you mean is a "written" constitution

Yes in the USA, there is a written constitution whereas in countries like Canada and the UK there isn't
But that doesn't mean those countries' governments don't have defined limits, it doesn't mean that their citizens don't have defined rights, it means that they are not defined (or written) is a single document (constitution) but by a series of many laws.

Would say Canada really differ if it repealed all those laws and codified them into a single law ?

The difference is that the governments/constitutions of countries like Canada evolved, whereas the constitution/government of the USA was created in a single moment.

Have you thought how a country like Canada could become a republic ?
 
To bring this thread back to the topic, "Should we repeal the 17th amendment". The Constitution guarantees every State equal footing with in the federal government, this is done via the Senate and this is why there are only 2 Senators per state, all States are equal. We have a House to represent the people and they are elected via popular vote among the set districts in each state, this is suppose to give equal voice of the citizens within the House. How can the Senate represent the citizens of the state when there is only 2 Senators? The designers of the Constitution never intended for the Senators to be the voice for the people of their state, this is why the duties of the Senate differ from those of the House. The population of a state doesn't matter in respect to its Senators, again, for all States are equal and all State are given an equal footing within the Senate. The House is a different story, the people of a State are represented based on population of that State, this is why California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has only 1. The Senate was designed express the wishes of the government of their represented State.
 
Terryj said:
To bring this thread back to the topic, "Should we repeal the 17th amendment". The Constitution guarantees every State equal footing with in the federal government, this is done via the Senate and this is why there are only 2 Senators per state, all States are equal. We have a House to represent the people and they are elected via popular vote among the set districts in each state, this is suppose to give equal voice of the citizens within the House. How can the Senate represent the citizens of the state when there is only 2 Senators? The designers of the Constitution never intended for the Senators to be the voice for the people of their state, this is why the duties of the Senate differ from those of the House. The population of a state doesn't matter in respect to its Senators, again, for all States are equal and all State are given an equal footing within the Senate. The House is a different story, the people of a State are represented based on population of that State, this is why California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has only 1. The Senate was designed express the wishes of the government of their represented State.
Click to expand...

So if the designers never intended Senators to be the voice of the people within their state, who were they supposed to be the voice of ?

The legislatures of their state ?
 
Vadinho said:
I can see you simply do not listen or care to comprehend anyone's opinion so this is likely the last time I respond
Click to expand...
It’s interesting that you make it sound as though the way a president is elected is my opinion rather than an absolute fact. And there’s no need to reply, in fact it’s maybe best you don’t. I can help correct the record and we can go our separate ways.

Vadinho said:
I acknowledged that fact that the current system is stacked in favor of states rather then citizens. I also acknowledged that the President is elected by the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

It’s not a system stacked against anyone. The federal government was created by the states via a mutual contract. The states created the federal government, which makes it disingenuous to act as though they stacked a system. And the president is elected by the states, not by the electoral college. The electoral college is the process by which the states agreed to find their elected president. To say again, the president is elected by the states.

Vadinho said:
we went from using gay marriage as a weapon against Kerry in 2004 to allowing gay marriage a few years later,
Click to expand...
.
It wasn’t in 2008, when president Obama and Hillary opposed same sex marriage. A very offensive position which I was 100% opposed to, as im sure you were. I’m sure you were very vocally opposed to both, likely didn’t vote for either so as to not compromise any integrity on such a key issue. I can only assume that’s why you brought up this topic. You said you won’t likely reply but I’d question why you supported the government ever defining or still defining marriage. Why would you, or anyone, suggest they even have that authority in the first place?
You also might want to research the same sex marriage timeline. Vermont was the first state for pass legislation for same sex marriage. A small state, possibly with a diversity composition you don’t agree with, is the catalyst for the same sex marriage federal law. Not the large west coast states, not president Obama, not the Democrat controlled house and senate and White House. It was a small state. That brings us full circle on the importance of states, and more so, the importance of small states. Which ties a nice bow on our conversation. Enjoy the weekend
 
Rich2018 said:
So if the designers never intended Senators to be the voice of the people within their state, who were they supposed to be the voice of ?

The legislatures of their state ?
Click to expand...

The senate was designed to represent the state as a whole. Your comment might have been sarcastic though because you’ve expressed vast knowledge about the government and the founders, so you’d likely know they spoke of the senate as the way to represent the states, while the house represented the people within the states. There would be no need to make that distinction so clear at the founding of the federal government if they were both to represent the same people. I’m sorry if I missed the sarcasm though, you can ignore this comment if thats the case
 
supremeLaw said:
The senate was designed to represent the state as a whole. Your comment might have been sarcastic though because you’ve expressed vast knowledge about the government and the founders, so you’d likely know they spoke of the senate as the way to represent the states, while the house represented the people within the states. There would be no need to make that distinction so clear at the founding of the federal government if they were both to represent the same people. I’m sorry if I missed the sarcasm though, you can ignore this comment if thats the case
Click to expand...

The states need no representation par se

Only the people in it do.
 
Rich2018 said:
The states need no representation par se

Only the people in it do.
Click to expand...

Rich, our other conversation is a bit more involved, I’ll get to that later but wanted you to know I didn’t forgot. I enjoy your educated replies, difficult questions and that you have a good attitude when responding. You also address most questions I ask. With the niceties out of the way, I’ll get to the states being represented.
One major reasons, maybe the main reason, that these states created the federal government was to represent them, collectively, in foreign affairs. States had import/export situations which might require treaties or tariffs. of course the 13 colonies together as one army is more fierce than Rhode Island’s individual army. And to that, they wanted to make sure each state was well represented in these dealings. The federal government collected taxes from the state, they had a direct interaction when the federal government needed funding. These and many other issues are state issues, and to that, the states needed a significant amount of federal representation. The 17th amendment is not entirely to blame of course.
 
Terryj said:
To bring this thread back to the topic, "Should we repeal the 17th amendment". The Constitution guarantees every State equal footing with in the federal government, this is done via the Senate and this is why there are only 2 Senators per state, all States are equal. We have a House to represent the people and they are elected via popular vote among the set districts in each state, this is suppose to give equal voice of the citizens within the House. How can the Senate represent the citizens of the state when there is only 2 Senators? The designers of the Constitution never intended for the Senators to be the voice for the people of their state, this is why the duties of the Senate differ from those of the House. The population of a state doesn't matter in respect to its Senators, again, for all States are equal and all State are given an equal footing within the Senate. The House is a different story, the people of a State are represented based on population of that State, this is why California has 53 representatives while Wyoming has only 1. The Senate was designed express the wishes of the government of their represented State.
Click to expand...

I’m having a nice discussion with Rich but didn’t mean to hijack your discussion with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom