Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-09-2010, 07:09 AM
joeydb's Avatar
joeydb joeydb is offline
Santa Anita
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southeastern PA
Posts: 3,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Naturally if you knew of or understood history you would have some sense of why the system was designed as it is. Seemingly in your perfect world we would just have an opinion poll that dictated our laws. Maybe the political version of Sportsnation? Because that show is working out so well...


I agree. Suggest to SCUDS that he review the history of why the Constitution sets up this bicameral system for the legislative body.

As we all might remember from history class, the House of Representatives is the body set up to implement representation in a way proportional to the population in each state. This would obviously give the largest states at any time most of the power on legislative issues. Had this been the only legislature, the smaller states would not have signed the Constitution.

The Senate has 2 votes per state because the view that competes with population-based representation is one based on each state's sovreignty. All states are considered to have the same level of sovreignty -- especially when drafting the Constitution where unanimous approval was needed.

These two different approaches, with both being vital to getting legislation through, is intended to give both types of states -- large and small, a place where they are strong enough to influence legislation. It is designed to maximize stability and provide checks and balances within the legislative branch. This is in addition to the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The system is the best we will ever have, whatever the frustrations one party or other may have in the present. Interestingly enough -- political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Washington warned in his farewell address that they ought never have too much power.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-09-2010, 08:38 PM
miraja2's Avatar
miraja2 miraja2 is offline
Arlington Park
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb


I agree. Suggest to SCUDS that he review the history of why the Constitution sets up this bicameral system for the legislative body.

As we all might remember from history class, the House of Representatives is the body set up to implement representation in a way proportional to the population in each state. This would obviously give the largest states at any time most of the power on legislative issues. Had this been the only legislature, the smaller states would not have signed the Constitution.

The Senate has 2 votes per state because the view that competes with population-based representation is one based on each state's sovreignty. All states are considered to have the same level of sovreignty -- especially when drafting the Constitution where unanimous approval was needed.

These two different approaches, with both being vital to getting legislation through, is intended to give both types of states -- large and small, a place where they are strong enough to influence legislation. It is designed to maximize stability and provide checks and balances within the legislative branch. This is in addition to the checks and balances between the legislative, executive and judicial branches.

The system is the best we will ever have, whatever the frustrations one party or other may have in the present. Interestingly enough -- political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Washington warned in his farewell address that they ought never have too much power.
Actually unanimous approval was not needed in either the convention (where three delegates refused to sign the finished document) or in the ratification process. Only nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify the Constitution in order for it to become operative (see Article VII).
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-12-2010, 06:29 AM
joeydb's Avatar
joeydb joeydb is offline
Santa Anita
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southeastern PA
Posts: 3,044
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miraja2
Actually unanimous approval was not needed in either the convention (where three delegates refused to sign the finished document) or in the ratification process. Only nine of the thirteen states needed to ratify the Constitution in order for it to become operative (see Article VII).
I stand corrected. I do remember reading that the delegates thought it was important to get unanimous support if possible, as this was to be the highest law of the land. But you're right, and I'll try to remember that 9 out of 13 was the number.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-10-2010, 02:24 AM
SCUDSBROTHER's Avatar
SCUDSBROTHER SCUDSBROTHER is offline
Flemington
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: L.A.
Posts: 11,326
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb

The system is the best we will ever have, whatever the frustrations one party or other may have in the present. Interestingly enough -- political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and Washington warned in his farewell address that they ought never have too much power.
Too much power? You've forced the guy to get 65% of the population's Senators to get anything passed. The advantages given your party with these cute rationalizations is obscene. That's what allows you to lie about what Americans want, or don't want. Just fess up to it (instead of misleading everyone into thinking it's a fair system.) He got elected with 53.4% of the voters ballots. He didn't get 65% of the populations support, but you're making him get 65% of the population's senators. Good trick. Can't do it. Must have failed ideas. Couldn't be your lil tricks n' advantages coming into play. That 41 Senators keeping filibusters going only represent 36% of our population. You should all remember that before you keep talking about how "the public" is for, or against him. This is mainly a parlor trick combining two bad parts of a fkd up design. You don't trick me one bit. The American People are with him, but the senate unfairly represents the American People. Then you go out n' act like the senate is the American people. It isn't. It's represents the views of a few elite Americans. Everyone admits it favors some Americans over others. So, don't act like all Americans decided to turn the guy down. Only 41% of a biased pool (hillbillies get preferential treatment) were required to be against him. Not "The American People." There's a 11.95% group of Americans getting only a 2% say in that senate. So, don't tell me it's a fair thing going on. It's not America. It's America's embarrassment. Amazing how you're against special preferences until it comes to something that favors you. Then it's all good.

Last edited by SCUDSBROTHER : 02-10-2010 at 03:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.