Repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the Senate to what it is supposed to be. The Senate is necessary for the balance between the One, the Few, and the Many that exists in so many aspects of the American system. Abolishing the Senate accomplishes nothing; restoring it accomplishes much.
Abolishing the Senate gives balance to the people who are already subjected to the whims of states, imaginary places with arbitrary boarders, that also determine:
1. The number of representatives in the federal government.
2. How those representatives get elected by creating districts.
Repealing the 17th amendment hands even more power to general assemblies.
You either must:
1. Abolish the Senate or
2. Abolish the Electoral College
You can't repeal the 17th Amendment and keep everything else. I would begin to questions why states are more important than people. Why do so few people who live someplace happen to have more power than lots of people who happen to live somewhere else?
At the very least, abolishing the senate could give you the New Jersey plan of governing, one vote for each state.
Didn't you play a Joad on stage? Even if you didn't, you certainly know your Steinbeck.
Does any government authority prevent people from moving between state? That has been and is a thing in other countries.
Political decisions are (ideally) made to accomplish the greatest good for the most people. They cannot be based on solving every problem conceivable or those that can be represented by one person in 310+ million.
The use of individual examples during the State of the Union address was one of Ronald Reagan's worst contributions to our politics.
BTW: "all" was introduced by you. My comment was generalized. You universalized it. That practice is a specific and fixable problem.
Well redlining certainly happened and if you can prevent basic services, you can prevent movement.
I just always find the idea of "move if you don't like it" to be professed by people who move because it's less life threating than if they stay, like the Joads.
The states are the constituent parts of the Union. The people organized themselves into states, the borders of which were determined democratically after thecera of royal charters. The US is not a unitary polity. Hand-waiving away all counter arguments and using loaded language of oppression to describe that which you do not like are not methods of persuasion.
The Electoral College is tied to representation in Congress and performs one task every four years. It's coexistence with the Senate is unobjectionable. They do different things.
Why would the New Jersey Plan be better than the Connecticut Compromise? New Jersey was Articles of Confederation redux and would not have solved anything.
It would be nice if we could get one Congress to operate as designed and to shrink the presidency back to what it is supposed to be.
Constitution has and can be amended. The people can decide how to divide themselves up and how to have themselves represented. We have done this with change over the course of 200 years. I'm not sure what loaded language I'm using, if you don't think creating states is arbitrary, then surely you will agree to give me, my family, and our friends equal representation in Congress? Or is such a suggestion "loaded" because the creation of the nation's capital was decided on compromise and therefore arbitrary items of the day?
I laugh at originalists, too, I'm just up front about it.
I understand that abolishing the senate and redefining the states is not a popular opinion, but the suggestion that we simply keep things because they were created and agreed upon in 1789 contradicts the premise of it's actual purpose of the Constitution.
I'm not suggesting the New Jersey plan would be preferable, I'm suggesting we can have a unicameral legislature and make it work. States have done this on their level.
I agree it would be great to shrink back the presidency, but we won't do that by handing more power to states. We need expanded voting to people and encourage more civic participation.
The loaded language is the dismissive comments about the states as states.
And, no. No one born after the 19th Century who chooses to live in the District of Columbia gets voting representation in Congress. You get three Electoral College votes. Which are the result of a compromise and would be forfeit with the abolition of the EC.
And, yes, generally speaking, decisions made through compromise are inherently better than those imposed by fiat.
Are you now a Jeffersonian, adopting his argument against the Tyranny of the Past?
How does "dismissive" language work when you don't hold the power or standard? That's a wild position to hold.
Example: Here's how states are made
Opposition: It's basically arbitrary and can be changed
Standard: That loaded dismissive language.
It's fascinating to think that you have the standard while at the same time describe the disagreement to that standard in a pejorative way.
I like the fact I can move to place where I pay federal taxes, get electoral votes used to elect a president, which is the same system used to determine congressional representation, which I somehow don't get and my position to change it is met with "19th century" remarks and Thomas Jefferson references and somehow I'M using loaded and dismissive language.
What category of the population is actually disenfranchised that shouldn't be? Not "constructively" disenfranchised, but actual, de jure disenfranchised.
I can only think of three categories who are not legally allowed to vote: felons (a fact being changed state-by-state based on their political process), non-citizens (also something states are trying to change; my argument is limited to the qualifications of electors for the House of Representatives), and minors under 18 (something President Bartlett tried to change?).
Informed voting is an obligation of citizenship. I agree that we need more civic participation (another feature of returning power to the states by making them more relevant). If reading Okay History accomplishes that, then I agree with that too.
At least three amendments to the Constitution have been failures. You pick the three. So, yes, the Constitution can be changed. Glad to hear you espouse the position that the amendment process is the mechanism for doing so versus mob rule or judicial decree.
Since we have so warped the original design, why not go all the way and turn the states into counties, as if we were Englad or something. Good luck with that. Name a continent-wide single polity nation-state. Ever.
Handing power back to the states is exactly how to shrink the presidency. Name an unfunded mandate prior to the New Deal. As states resume their roles, power will be sucked out of Washington. Senators will no longer be playing to the cameras. Thru may even read a bill or two. As the limited, centralized government comes back into focus, the presidency will rebound to something Calvin Coolidge would recognize.
What's an example of Mob ruling? Because I can state judicial decrees both good and bad.
Well we don't need the presidency to "rebound" to Calvin Coolidge and three tax cuts and another Depression, but we can stop governing like we have four four individual intuitions where we worry about the health of justices.
Repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the Senate to what it is supposed to be. The Senate is necessary for the balance between the One, the Few, and the Many that exists in so many aspects of the American system. Abolishing the Senate accomplishes nothing; restoring it accomplishes much.
Abolishing the Senate gives balance to the people who are already subjected to the whims of states, imaginary places with arbitrary boarders, that also determine:
1. The number of representatives in the federal government.
2. How those representatives get elected by creating districts.
Repealing the 17th amendment hands even more power to general assemblies.
You either must:
1. Abolish the Senate or
2. Abolish the Electoral College
You can't repeal the 17th Amendment and keep everything else. I would begin to questions why states are more important than people. Why do so few people who live someplace happen to have more power than lots of people who happen to live somewhere else?
At the very least, abolishing the senate could give you the New Jersey plan of governing, one vote for each state.
And people can move between states until they find one amenable to their way of life.
Not "all people can move" - that's loaded language of a person of privilege.
Didn't you play a Joad on stage? Even if you didn't, you certainly know your Steinbeck.
Does any government authority prevent people from moving between state? That has been and is a thing in other countries.
Political decisions are (ideally) made to accomplish the greatest good for the most people. They cannot be based on solving every problem conceivable or those that can be represented by one person in 310+ million.
The use of individual examples during the State of the Union address was one of Ronald Reagan's worst contributions to our politics.
BTW: "all" was introduced by you. My comment was generalized. You universalized it. That practice is a specific and fixable problem.
Well redlining certainly happened and if you can prevent basic services, you can prevent movement.
I just always find the idea of "move if you don't like it" to be professed by people who move because it's less life threating than if they stay, like the Joads.
Refugees are not willing participants.
The states are the constituent parts of the Union. The people organized themselves into states, the borders of which were determined democratically after thecera of royal charters. The US is not a unitary polity. Hand-waiving away all counter arguments and using loaded language of oppression to describe that which you do not like are not methods of persuasion.
The Electoral College is tied to representation in Congress and performs one task every four years. It's coexistence with the Senate is unobjectionable. They do different things.
Why would the New Jersey Plan be better than the Connecticut Compromise? New Jersey was Articles of Confederation redux and would not have solved anything.
It would be nice if we could get one Congress to operate as designed and to shrink the presidency back to what it is supposed to be.
Constitution has and can be amended. The people can decide how to divide themselves up and how to have themselves represented. We have done this with change over the course of 200 years. I'm not sure what loaded language I'm using, if you don't think creating states is arbitrary, then surely you will agree to give me, my family, and our friends equal representation in Congress? Or is such a suggestion "loaded" because the creation of the nation's capital was decided on compromise and therefore arbitrary items of the day?
I laugh at originalists, too, I'm just up front about it.
I understand that abolishing the senate and redefining the states is not a popular opinion, but the suggestion that we simply keep things because they were created and agreed upon in 1789 contradicts the premise of it's actual purpose of the Constitution.
I'm not suggesting the New Jersey plan would be preferable, I'm suggesting we can have a unicameral legislature and make it work. States have done this on their level.
I agree it would be great to shrink back the presidency, but we won't do that by handing more power to states. We need expanded voting to people and encourage more civic participation.
We need more people to read Okay History! :)
The loaded language is the dismissive comments about the states as states.
And, no. No one born after the 19th Century who chooses to live in the District of Columbia gets voting representation in Congress. You get three Electoral College votes. Which are the result of a compromise and would be forfeit with the abolition of the EC.
And, yes, generally speaking, decisions made through compromise are inherently better than those imposed by fiat.
Are you now a Jeffersonian, adopting his argument against the Tyranny of the Past?
How does "dismissive" language work when you don't hold the power or standard? That's a wild position to hold.
Example: Here's how states are made
Opposition: It's basically arbitrary and can be changed
Standard: That loaded dismissive language.
It's fascinating to think that you have the standard while at the same time describe the disagreement to that standard in a pejorative way.
I like the fact I can move to place where I pay federal taxes, get electoral votes used to elect a president, which is the same system used to determine congressional representation, which I somehow don't get and my position to change it is met with "19th century" remarks and Thomas Jefferson references and somehow I'M using loaded and dismissive language.
"We need expanded voting to people"
What category of the population is actually disenfranchised that shouldn't be? Not "constructively" disenfranchised, but actual, de jure disenfranchised.
I can only think of three categories who are not legally allowed to vote: felons (a fact being changed state-by-state based on their political process), non-citizens (also something states are trying to change; my argument is limited to the qualifications of electors for the House of Representatives), and minors under 18 (something President Bartlett tried to change?).
Informed voting is an obligation of citizenship. I agree that we need more civic participation (another feature of returning power to the states by making them more relevant). If reading Okay History accomplishes that, then I agree with that too.
Hello from Washington, DC! Where 700K citizens are disenfranchised and shouldn't be!
At least three amendments to the Constitution have been failures. You pick the three. So, yes, the Constitution can be changed. Glad to hear you espouse the position that the amendment process is the mechanism for doing so versus mob rule or judicial decree.
Since we have so warped the original design, why not go all the way and turn the states into counties, as if we were Englad or something. Good luck with that. Name a continent-wide single polity nation-state. Ever.
Handing power back to the states is exactly how to shrink the presidency. Name an unfunded mandate prior to the New Deal. As states resume their roles, power will be sucked out of Washington. Senators will no longer be playing to the cameras. Thru may even read a bill or two. As the limited, centralized government comes back into focus, the presidency will rebound to something Calvin Coolidge would recognize.
What's an example of Mob ruling? Because I can state judicial decrees both good and bad.
Well we don't need the presidency to "rebound" to Calvin Coolidge and three tax cuts and another Depression, but we can stop governing like we have four four individual intuitions where we worry about the health of justices.
It would be better to remove political parties from the system of organizing Congress. Or, better yet, abolish political parties all together.
Well that's less realistic than abolishing the Senate.