Maher Rants Against Constitution, Founders: Filibuster Is ‘Silent Coup,’ Tiny States Don’t Deserve Two Senators (regime, marijuana)

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Yes. And some people feel it shouldn't be like that, because it gives small states undue influence on public policy.

?

but it doesnt...originally the vote for senator wasnt even done by the people, it was selected by the state...(is ny bolding better than capitalization...does it make you feel better to attack posters???)))

fact there are 50 states, and 100 senators...its quite fair...doesnt matter the physical size or popualtion size of the state....

but it doesnt...originally the vote for senator wasnt even done by the people, it was selected by the state...(is ny bolding better than capitalization...does it make you feel better to attack posters???)))

So? You're simply appealing to tradition, claiming that the way things are is the best because it's the way things are. You're just spouting logical fallacies.

Your condescension and inappropriate use of capitalization and boldface do nothing to bolster your argument. Again, everyone is well aware of the facts. No one is debating the facts. Why do you continue posting facts that aren't in contention?

fact there are 50 states, and 100 senators...its quite fair...doesnt matter the physical size or popualtion size of the state....

Except that it's clearly not fair. The population absolutely matters. Let's say we turn California into 66 separate states and give them each two senators. Would that be fair? How about if we divide the liberal areas of San Francisco up into 100 states and give each of those two senators and a representative? Would that be fair?

What you've claimed is that such a system would be fair. That's the trouble with apportioning representation based on arbitrary boundaries - it doesn't at all represent the will of the people. You might claim that it represents the will of the states, but to that I say so what. Why should the will of Wyoming with no people count as much as the will of California, with 12% of the nation's population and 13% of its GDP? On what planet does it make sense to award representation to arbitrarily drawn political subdivisions?

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by JasonF

So? You're simply appealing to tradition, claiming that the way things are is the best because it's the way things are. You're just spouting logical fallacies.

Your condescension and inappropriate use of capitalization and boldface do nothing to bolster your argument. Again, everyone is well aware of the facts. No one is debating the facts. Why do you continue posting facts that aren't in contention?
Except that it's clearly not fair. The population absolutely matters. Let's say we turn California into 66 separate states and give them each two senators. Would that be fair? How about if we divide the liberal areas of San Francisco up into 100 states and give each of those two senators and a representative? Would that be fair?

What you've claimed is that such a system would be fair. That's the trouble with apportioning representation based on arbitrary boundaries - it doesn't at all represent the will of the people. You might claim that it represents the will of the states, but to that I say so what. Why should the will of Wyoming with no people count as much as the will of California, with 12% of the nation's population and 13% of its GDP? On what planet does it make sense to award representation to arbitrarily drawn political subdivisions?

it doesnt make sense to have two houses where the elected representatives are based on population as it gives too much power to the larger states. our founding father were quite wise when they set up congress like they did. the house is the peoples house, it is population based as well it should be. but the senate was set up so that ALL the states regardless of population had an equal voice. also note that all spending and taxation bills are suppose to originate in the house, and all treaties and presidential appointees are subject to senate approval. there is good reason for this, and you would realize it if you would take the time to study how our government was set up originally.

[Just_the_facts]

Originally Posted by rbohm

it doesnt make sense to have two houses where the elected representatives are based on population as it gives too much power to the larger states. our founding father were quite wise when they set up congress like they did. the house is the peoples house, it is population based as well it should be. but the senate was set up so that ALL the states regardless of population had an equal voice. also note that all spending and taxation bills are suppose to originate in the house, and all treaties and presidential appointees are subject to senate approval. there is good reason for this, and you would realize it if you would take the time to study how our government was set up originally.

But people are more important than states. A state is nothing more than a political subdivision with boundaries on a map. Not a living, breathing individual. And, as was point out earlier in this thread, state boundaries are arbitrary. The definition of a person is not. How much power one state or another state has is really not that relevant. What's relevant is the power of an individual who votes in an election and the Senate insures that an individual voting in Vermont has much more influence than an individual voting in California (an individual Vermonter's vote means more because there are so few voters and a Vermonter is able to get more individualized attention from their Senator than a Californian as a California Senator has to represent so many more people).

Some posters like to say "the Founders this" and "the Founders that," but I really don't hold them in such high regard. After all, many (if not a majority) were slaveholders. Also, they did not believe in women's rights or the rights of Native Americans. The Constitution was a document that was written with the rights and privileges of white male property owners as the top priority. We need to move beyond that elitist viewpoint.

there is good reason for this, and you would realize it if you would take the time to study how our government was set up originally.

Once again, the facts and original reasons are not in dispute. What is disputed is whether that approach still makes sense today, when we have single states that have more people and larger economic output than 21 other states combined.

The condescending attitude of people who can't even be bothered to read the thread and respond to what is actually written is rather mind boggling.

[Patricius Maximus]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

No, you had no implicit right to free-speech prior to it being codified into a constitutional amendment.

The First Amendment did not create a right, but rather codified and protected a right that man was already entitled to via natural law. This is a principle that was taken as self-evident by the Founders and it was one they had in mind when they created the United States and later the Constitution - indeed, the idea that humans were by their nature entitled to liberty was the bedrock principle that underlied the very concept of the country. Also, the Constitution originally did not feature an explicit right to free speech because it was considered unnecessary, due to the fact that the federal government wasn't delegated the power to violate that right. The Bill of Rights were added on later as an added precaution and a healthy redundancy, which sweetened the deal for those who were more concerned about government power. I would say that the history of the federal government acquiring ever-greater power has proven that the anti-Federalists were correct.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by Just_the_facts

But people are more important than states.

which is why the house of representatives is based on population. the house was set up to be the voice of the people in congress.

the senate was set up to be the voice of the states in congress, which is why the senators were originally picked by the state legislatures.

there is a neat balance of powers in congress between the people and the states, and the people end up with more power, but the states have a voice also.

[workingclasshero]

Originally Posted by JasonF

Once again, the facts and original reasons are not in dispute. What is disputed is whether that approach still makes sense today, when we have single states that have more people and larger economic output than 21 other states combined.

The condescending attitude of people who can't even be bothered to read the thread and respond to what is actually written is rather mind boggling.

so your idea is one state should RULE the others and subjegate the 21 other states because of a population size or output


let's base it on land size..bet you would be all for that wouldnt you, except if you were roade island


here is a fact or two for you, and YOU CANT ARGUE them
While the number of House seats is based on population, each state gets 2 senators. So in the senate all states have equal representation and the senate can reject or change laws proposed by the house.


you do understand EQUAL REPRESENTATION, dont you??? liberals do understand the little word EQUAL, dont they

[Just_the_facts]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

so your idea is one state should RULE the others and subjegate the 21 other states because of a population size or output


let's base it on land size..bet you would be all for that wouldnt you, except if you were roade island


here is a fact or two for you, and YOU CANT ARGUE them
While the number of House seats is based on population, each state gets 2 senators. So in the senate all states have equal representation and the senate can reject or change laws proposed by the house.


you do understand EQUAL REPRESENTATION, dont you??? liberals do understand the little word EQUAL, dont they

Posters here understand the concept of equal representation. Their disagreement with you lies not in their understanding of equal representation, but rather on their view of whether or not all states should have equal representation. Personally, I do not think that states should be represented in the federal government and believe that only the people should be represented via the House. I think the rights and interests of the people is more important than that of the states (which is essentially a collection of people).

In fact, the history of state rights is rather ugly, in my opinion, as it was used to justify things like slavery and segregation.

so your idea is one state should RULE the others and subjegate the 21 other states because of a population size or output

My idea is that the people should rule, and that everyone should have equal say, as opposed to people in low population areas getting more say than people in high population areas.

let's base it on land size..bet you would be all for that wouldnt you, except if you were roade island

No. That would be incredibly stupid and much more similar to the current system of awarding representation based on arbitrarily drawn lines on a map.

Could you point out where I've supported anything even remotely like what you're suggesting I would support?

I think the rights and interests of the people is more important than that of the states (which is essentially a collection of people).

Exactly. The people should be represented, not arbitrary political divisions.