Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for me, Yes, I support abolishing the U.S. Senate because its principle of two seats for each U.S. state is undemocratic.
The Senate, Presidency and Judiciary are NOT Democratic, by design. Our founders understood Democracies do not protect minorities. The U.S. is a federal Republic. Each state is equally sovereign to all others, and has equitable representation in the Senate. This is a good thing, and protects states with small populations. True Democracy, and true majority rule, would me nobody had any rights but those the majority agreed to.
Why exactly is being a republic inherently better than being a democracy, though?
Every form of government tends to perish by excess of its basic principle.
Aristocracy ruins itself by limiting too narrowly the circle within which power is confined; oligarchy ruins itself by the incautious scramble for immediate wealth. In either case the end is revolution. When revolution comes it may seem to arise from little causes and petty whims; but though it may spring from slight occasions it is the precipitate result of grave and accumulated wrongs; when a body is weakened by neglected ills, the merest exposure may bring serious disease.
"Then democracy comes: the poor overcome their opponents, slaughtering some and banishing the rest; and give to the people an equal share of freedom and power".
But even democracy ruins itself by excess–of democracy.
Its basic principle is the equal right of all to hold office and determine public policy. This is at first glance a delightful arrangement; it becomes disastrous because the people are not properly equipped by education to select the best rulers and the wisest courses. "As to the people they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them" (Protagoras, 317); to get a doctrine accepted or rejected it is only necessary to have it praised or ridiculed in the Mains-stream Media or by the Hollywood Elite. Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course.
The upshot of such a democracy is tyranny or autocracy; the crowd so loves flattery, it is so "hungry for honey," that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous flatterer, calling himself the "protector of the people" rises to supreme power.
--- Plato (with some literary license from me).
That was a little over 2,100 years ago, and you can see that nothing has changed.
When you finally gain the courage to read Plato's The Republic, you will see that Plato's Republic is nearly identical in every way, shape and form to the united States federal republic.
That makes the Framers of the Constitution plagiarists.
The united States is Plato's idea; not theirs.
But those men were remarkable nonetheless. They're remarkable, because they re-discovered Plato and his republic; they studied his works and writing; the works and writings of Plato's contemporaries; they compared and contrasted governmental systems; they came to the correct conclusion that republic is the best most stable form of government; plus they realized that the diversity in the united States of geography, topology, geology, resources, people and the sheer size and potential future size of the US demanded federalism and republic.
The most remarkable thing is that they implemented it successfully.
The early history of the world was kings and monarchies, and then centralized governments.
Republic is a progressive step forward.....why would you want to go backward?
I cannot prove it --- because I don't have the luxury of time to do the research -- but from the papers I read of the committee meeting notes and private papers and personal diaries of the Framers, their goal was ultimately to create what I call "pushing power down."
I believe the Northwest Ordinance was the framework set up to establish federal republicanism.
At the time of the Constitution, the States and Commonwealths were set up as unitary republics. The goal was to have the States and Commonwealths eventually shift to federal republics.
So, Indiana -- today -- is a unitary republic. It would divide Indiana into maybe 10 zones or regions and institute federalism. And then those regions would have counties as the lower governmental unit. And then each county would be a federal republic, with townships being the lowest administrative unit.
That's about as close to pure democracy as you could ever possibly get, without having dictatorship.
You'll find that freedom and prosperity are just around the corner...
...once you stop drinking the Left-Wing Kool-Aid®...
Why exactly is being a republic inherently better than being a democracy, though?
Because a Democracy gives power to the majority. The minority must have a say as well, and in a true democracy they do not.
Get rid of the 17th and allow Senators to be chosen rather than elected. This way they can be hired and fired just like any other job, and the career politician mindset removed.
Heh, just read what Mircea wrote. Awesome post Micea!!! Zot too!!! Seems we are all on a wire today :P
holy crap Bentbow and Volobjectitarian too!!! See what happens when I look up after posting!
Originally Posted by gmagoo The Senate can go at anytime. Why should a handful of sparsely populated states have 10-12 Senators while heavily populated states have only 2. That`s as undemocratic as it gets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmeraldCityWanderer
Wow, I have never seen some one so uneducated in how the government works.
I agree somewhat. There's some fairly marginal faux politicos in here. For those of you who read faux but hear FOX, you may be one yourself.
Originally Posted by gmagoo View Post
The Senate can go at anytime. Why should a handful of sparsely populated states have 10-12 Senators while heavily populated states have only 2. That`s as undemocratic as it gets.
Dear God. Please educate yourself. And you want anyone to take your posts seriously on this forum? You don't even know THIS?!
Quote:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State. [U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 3, clause 1]
That is the perfect recipe for a revolution. When 50.1% can tell49.9% what to do, you are going to see blood, where freedom & liberty are concerned.
There is a big reason for a 2/3rd vote that they got dropped from 66 votes, to 60 so more unwanted crap could get past congress and now you want it dropped to 51.
You believe government is your savior, your momma, your daddy, your boss?
Look, laws are never made to give you/ let you have more liberty and freedom. You were born with that.
Laws can only take your liberties & freedom, you already had... Key word, "had".
The "founders" wanted 66 votes in the US Senate to get it through.
The mighty attack on the Constitution called the Progressive Era, made it so Senators are elected by corporations, instead of appointed by the States in the States best interest.
Then some goofball Progressive Democrat got it passed that it only took 60 votes.
Now they changed some to only take 51 votes.
The closer they get to only 51 vote, the revolution grows nearer and nearer.
The "founders" didn't want us at each others throats constantly, either. Thus the 2/3rd rule.
As for me, Yes, I support abolishing the U.S. Senate because its principle of two seats for each U.S. state is undemocratic.
I am open to reforming the U.S. Senate to make its seat appropriation for each U.S. state be done in the same method as is currently done for the U.S. House of Representatives. However, I think that abolishing the U.S. Senate would be better than this option, considering that what exactly is the point of wasting taxpayer money on having two versions of the U.S. House of Representatives when we can have only one version (the actual U.S. House of Representatives).
The US Senate is an extremely undemocratic institution. Why should Wyoming and California have the same number of senators? It is so unfair to the citizens of the big states that they have less representation compared to their population.
I would support abolishing the Senate and having just the House and the President. I know people cry afoul that that would mean fewer checks and balances, but all House seats are up for election every two years. That is the ultimate check and balance.
We know this. We disagree with it. It was done two hundred years ago. I understand the intent of it, but that doesn't make it democratic or right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
