Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    23 Jan '10 17:32
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Here's the example that makes me think about this topic:

    "In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If
    these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. ...[text shortened]... positories of power over them."

    http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp
    The Senate was originally conceived as being the rough equivalent of the English House of Lords. Many of the founding fathers feared too much democracy would be a bad thing and were very concerned with how to keep the democratic will of the people in check. The House of Representatives was to be the populist chamber, representing the common man, while the Senate was to represent the interests of the rich landowning class and provide a check upon the democratic tendencies of the people. It must be remembered that Senators were not popularly elected until 1913. Originally they were elected by the state legislatures.
  2. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    23 Jan '10 17:58
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The Senate was originally conceived as being the rough equivalent of the English House of Lords. Many of the founding fathers feared too much democracy would be a bad thing and were very concerned with how to keep the democratic will of the people in check. The House of Representatives was to be the populist chamber, representing the common man, while the S ...[text shortened]... s were not popularly elected until 1913. Originally they were elected by the state legislatures.
    The rationale for Senate and House wasn't to hinder democracy -- it was to solve the "small state vs. big state" problem. Small states didn't want solely population-based representation in the Federal government because they would have been easily outvoted by 2 or 3 larger states every time, even if they all banded together.
  3. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    23 Jan '10 18:02
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    The rationale for Senate and House wasn't to hinder democracy -- it was to solve the "small state vs. big state" problem. Small states didn't want solely population-based representation in the Federal government because they would have been easily outvoted by 2 or 3 larger states every time, even if they all banded together.
    Despite what your schoolbooks tell you, that was only part of it. A large part of it was also to keep democracy in check. A bicameral legislature served both purposes.
  4. Standard member spruce112358
    Democracy Advocate
    23 Jan '10 18:18
    Originally posted by rwingett
    Despite what your schoolbooks tell you, that was only part of it. A large part of it was also to keep democracy in check. A bicameral legislature served both purposes.
    Read "The Summer of 1787". It's not a schoolbook, but you might manage.
  5. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    23 Jan '10 18:25
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Read "The Summer of 1787". It's not a schoolbook, but you might manage.
    Brilliant comeback. 😴

    Are you actually going to make an argument to contradict my post?
  6. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    23 Jan '10 21:44
    Originally posted by Sam The Sham
    OK I'm interested in the reading you claim to have done on Madison that makes you call him a fool, etc.

    Please give us a few examples of the reason for your hatred of him, inquiring minds want to know.
    Already did in another topic. Plenty of direct quotes from Madison himself:

    Thread 124653

    By the way: I don't hate him. I just tell it how it is.
  7. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    23 Jan '10 21:46
    Originally posted by badmoon
    He co-authored The Federalist Papers. For that alone he rises above such petty criticisms.
    Have you read the Federalist Papers?

    They're a very direct attack on democracy and a defense for oligarchy.

    Utter contempt for the poor, plans for keeping the people divided, plans for keeping the poor people away from power structures, plans for the rich to get all the power, etc, etc, etc..

    http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/fed-papers.pdf Knock yourself out!
  8. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    23 Jan '10 21:48
    Originally posted by spruce112358
    Read "The Summer of 1787". It's not a schoolbook, but you might manage.
    Read the Federalist Papers and the debates that followed.

    They are written by the men themselves and they are very clear on what their goals were.
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Just another day
    23 Jan '10 23:56
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    Read the Federalist Papers and the debates that followed.

    They are written by the men themselves and they are very clear on what their goals were.
    See how annoying it is when people tell you to read whole books?
  10. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    23 Jan '10 23:58
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    See how annoying it is when people tell you to read whole books?
    I didn't find annoying. I found it naive.

    If he wants to know what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish he should read what the founding fathers wrote. Not what some guy says.

    Simple really.
  11. 24 Jan '10 01:07 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    I didn't find annoying. I found it naive.

    If he wants to know what the founding fathers wanted to accomplish he should read what the founding fathers wrote. Not what some guy says.

    Simple really.
    I don't think you've read the Federalist Papers as you claim, or if you did, you didn't understand them.
  12. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    24 Jan '10 10:23
    Originally posted by Sam The Sham
    I don't think you've read the Federalist Papers as you claim, or if you did, you didn't understand them.
    Read them for yourself and then get back to me.
  13. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    24 Jan '10 12:59
    Originally posted by Sam The Sham
    I don't think you've read the Federalist Papers as you claim, or if you did, you didn't understand them.
    On a second thought:

    Do you want to start a new thread where we compromise to read and comment on The Federalist and are allowed to quote from other direct sources to back our analysis of it?

    There are 80 something papers in it so if we take 3 days for paper we can get this ball rolling.

    Of course other are invited to join in the hunt but the main debate will be between us two.

    Are you up for it?
  14. 24 Jan '10 13:48 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    On a second thought:

    Do you want to start a new thread where we compromise to read and comment on The Federalist and are allowed to quote from other direct sources to back our analysis of it?

    There are 80 something papers in it so if we take 3 days for paper we can get this ball rolling.

    Of course other are invited to join in the hunt but the main debate will be between us two.

    Are you up for it?
    No.

    You refered to the Federalist Papers as:

    "They're a very direct attack on democracy and a defense for oligarchy. "

    "Utter contempt for the poor, plans for keeping the people divided, plans for keeping the poor people away from power structures, plans for the rich to get all the power, etc, etc, etc".

    You'll need to argue with someone else to support that claim. There are 85 articles in the Federalist Papers and they are not light reading. Your suggestion makes me more certain than ever that you haven't read them, but got your ideas from a review in The Weekly Worker or whatever. What you're suggesting would take a ridiculous amount of time,effort, and analysis.

    Debate someone else.
  15. Standard member adam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    24 Jan '10 15:10
    Originally posted by Sam The Sham
    No.

    You refered to the Federalist Papers as:

    "They're a very direct attack on democracy and a defense for oligarchy. "

    "Utter contempt for the poor, plans for keeping the people divided, plans for keeping the poor people away from power structures, plans for the rich to get all the power, etc, etc, etc".

    You'll need to argue with someone el ...[text shortened]... ing would take a ridiculous amount of time,effort, and analysis.

    Debate someone else.
    Translation:

    I'm a a lazy uneducated bigot that rather believe the lies I've been told than do some work for myself and actually do some kind of original thinking.