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

Debates Forum

  1. 24 Nov '13 13:05 / 1 edit
    The Framers originally set up Congress in order to have the House directly voted upon by the populace and the States to appoint members to the Senate. The House was seen to provide voting power by the average Joe and the Senate a way to restrict the destructive powers of democracy and ensure state participation in the federal branch.

    However, our all knowing and enlightened progressive leadership at the turn of the 20th century changed all this via the 17th amendment by having Senators directly elected by the people. So what use is the Senate now?

    It would seem to me that "democracy lovers" would only favor having the House exist since the terms of office are shorter, thus averting the longer Mubarak like terms in office we see in the Senate. And if the House is the will of the direct vote, why do we need two wills of the direct vote? Why not three or four chambers who are directly voted upon by the people? It just makes no sense.

    So either get rid of the Senate altogether, or give the states back their voice in the Federal system so that they can appoint them once again.
  2. 24 Nov '13 13:46
    http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_senate_is_the_saucer_into_which_we_pour_legislation_to_cool/


    I suppose it makes sense
  3. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    24 Nov '13 14:13
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_senate_is_the_saucer_into_which_we_pour_legislation_to_cool/


    I suppose it makes sense
    legislation that favors people are poured to cool, while legislation that favors corporations...
  4. 24 Nov '13 15:11
    Originally posted by kmax87
    legislation that favors people are poured to cool, while legislation that favors corporations...
    Very pithy.
    Obama was never a politician at all until he was elected to the Senate. Prior to that he was a "community organizer" for ACORN, and aren't we all thrilled with what he has done since?
  5. 24 Nov '13 19:29
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_senate_is_the_saucer_into_which_we_pour_legislation_to_cool/


    I suppose it makes sense
    It is not proven that Washington said such a thing, and with good reason. The Senate was suppose to be the federal institution through which states had power in the Federal governmnet. More than likely this is nothing more than a progressive fable, started during the age of progressivism, the late 1800's, in order to push their agenda in the 17th amendment.
  6. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    24 Nov '13 22:34
    Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15
    Very pithy.
    Obama was never a politician at all until he was elected to the Senate. Prior to that he was a "community organizer" for ACORN, and aren't we all thrilled with what he has done since?
    its an australian's raison dete to take the pith. glad to be of service. Not sure wha the Obama ad hominem was all about???
  7. 24 Nov '13 22:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    It is not proven that Washington said such a thing, and with good reason. The Senate was suppose to be the federal institution through which states had power in the Federal governmnet. More than likely this is nothing more than a progressive fable, started during the age of progressivism, the late 1800's, in order to push their agenda in the 17th amendment.
    Yes, thank you , I KNOW that it's an urban legend Washington said it, that was covered in the article , but as I said, it sounds about right.
    Jeez.
  8. 25 Nov '13 15:57
    Originally posted by whodey
    The Framers originally set up Congress in order to have the House directly voted upon by the populace and the States to appoint members to the Senate. The House was seen to provide voting power by the average Joe and the Senate a way to restrict the destructive powers of democracy and ensure state participation in the federal branch.

    However, our all kno ...[text shortened]... give the states back their voice in the Federal system so that they can appoint them once again.
    What was the United States supposed to be?

    We were never supposed to be a nation dominated at the national level.
  9. 25 Nov '13 16:05 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    It is not proven that Washington said such a thing, and with good reason. The Senate was suppose to be the federal institution through which states had power in the Federal government.
    The Senate fulfills its federal function by ensuring that all states are represented equally regardless of population. The balance between central government and the representation of regional interests is preserved by the balance between a House where more populous states receive more representation and a Senate where representation is equal.
  10. 25 Nov '13 17:46
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    The Senate fulfills its federal function by ensuring that all states are represented equally regardless of population. The balance between central government and the representation of regional interests is preserved by the balance between a House where more populous states receive more representation and a Senate where representation is equal.
    Historically we are provided enough information to say for certainty that the real issue was the federal government usurping state rights. It appears history has been revised once again by progressives.
  11. 25 Nov '13 17:46 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by Eladar
    What was the United States supposed to be?

    We were never supposed to be a nation dominated at the national level.
    States were suppose to govern themselves with the federal government playing referee.

    What happens now is, the US Congress runs everything, but we have all but one vote to have a say. The end result if that those who vote for their one representative are happy with the power and money they bring into their state, but hate the other 49 states for dictating to them what they have no control or power over. The end result is a Congressional approval rating of only 5%.

    This seems to be the democracy progressives had in mind for us all. If dolts like Nancy Pelosi are going to make decisions for me, I should have the right be able to vote against them.