Sequester as Constitutional Failure (Harry Reid, interstates, wage, generations)

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by squarian

I think the main reason for the adoption of the 17th was the perception at the time (I think warranted, in light of the political history of the Gilded Age), that election by legislatures was not working as intended, in your phrase representing the choice of "ultimately the people".

I just don't get the argument. Senate elections are state wide affairs, candidates run on the how they can represent their state in that body. The quibble seems to be over whether it is the state legislature or the people of state who decides who shall represent their state. Either way, senators are elected to represent their state what difference does it make who does the selecting?

The original reason for the senate to be selected by State legislatures was because Madison et, al, weren't big fans of direct democracy. The thought was, at the time, that Senators selected by the "senior" members of a state would insure that more sober members of their state, immune from the particular fashion of the electorate would be produce a more judicious body of elder statements as opposed to the rash and impulsive choices of the House. Of course they couldn't foresee that state legislatures would be dominated by crackpots and total lunatics as they are today.

Frankly I think the people were more than wise to eliminate the crackpots and lunatics from the equation.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by pknopp

There wasn't a single Republican vote for it.

House Roll Call #165 Details - OpenCongress

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

Hmm, I guess I read that wrong then. So what you are saying is that the health care bill was 100% a democrat decision that was passed to which over 50% of the nation disagreed with?

Interesting.

That corrected, do you think that such a vote did not go against some state legislatures who were Democrats? I mean, you don't get such a high disapproval of a bill (regardless of the reason) without some state legislatures disagreeing (and the people there in) with the senates selection. You may have seen democrat senators recalled if it disturbed the populace of a state enough. I know many democrats disagreed with this bill (they were wanting a UHC focus), but it would serve the same point I was making.

[pknopp]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Hmm, I guess I read that wrong then. So what you are saying is that the health care bill was 100% a democrat decision that was passed to which over 50% of the nation disagreed with?

Interesting.

That corrected, do you think that such a vote did not go against some state legislatures who were Democrats? I mean, you don't get such a high disapproval of a bill (regardless of the reason) without some state legislatures disagreeing (and the people there in) with the senates selection. You may have seen democrat senators recalled if it disturbed the populace of a state enough. I know many democrats disagreed with this bill (they were wanting a UHC focus), but it would serve the same point I was making.

I was just correcting the record. The rest of the discussion doesn't really involve me but I have been reading it obviously. Continue on.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

I just don't get the argument. Senate elections are state wide affairs, candidates run on the how they can represent their state in that body. The quibble seems to be over whether it is the state legislature or the people of state who decides who shall represent their state. Either way, senators are elected to represent their state what difference does it make who does the selecting?

The original reason for the senate to be selected by State legislatures was because Madison et, al, weren't big fans of direct democracy. The thought was, at the time, that Senators selected by the "senior" members of a state would insure that more sober members of their state, immune from the particular fashion of the electorate would be produce a more judicious body of elder statements as opposed to the rash and impulsive choices of the House. Of course they couldn't foresee that state legislatures would be dominated by crackpots and total lunatics as they are today.

Frankly I think the people were more than wise to eliminate the crackpots and lunatics from the equation.

That isn't the point. You see, people respond differently in immediacy of a debate. Good or bad, but the public has a short term memory. In states, they have much more control over their state legislatures (the elections of each within) than they do over the election of senators due to the fact of media based politics. While if an issue is hot, people will get involved and take action, but they may not over time when they get busy with other things remember the position and voting aspects of the senator come the popular election. There is more granualr control of the state legislature than there is the senate elect.

Technically, you are correct, if the populace were studied and dutiful people who watched every move and recorded the actions of the senators, come election, they would hold them to such. Problem is, the people have short memories and are easily susceptible to pure democracy tactics of manipulation.

Without the 17th, they would have a more immediate control over their senators and be able to recall them immediately when they disregarded the people rather than waiting for time to encourage people to forget. Why do you think most politicians don't make any major decisions near election time? They are gaming the system.

You can blame the people, tell them they need to pay more attention, but it doesn't change the fact that the 17th purposely lessens that responsibility due to its makeup and understanding of human nature.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by pknopp

I was just correcting the record. The rest of the discussion doesn't really involve me but I have been reading it obviously. Continue on.

It is appreciated. Not sure why I thought that, guess I was recounting the "debate" aspect rather than the actual vote. Regardless, thanks for the correction.

[Willsson]

Read the Constitution as the framers intended. The conditions in DC today are NOT a Constitutional failure, by far. It is more Constitutional success to stall the government until a workable Congress and President can be found. The government has plenty of cash to perform those duties ascribed by the Constitution.

The electoral college elected the President.
The people elected Congress.

And the only thing Westminister we do in the U.S. is a dog show. Which group do you belong to.

[Nomander]

Originally Posted by Willsson

Read the Constitution as the framers intended. The conditions in DC today are NOT a Constitutional failure, by far. It is more Constitutional success to stall the government until a workable Congress and President can be found. The government has plenty of cash to perform those duties ascribed by the Constitution.

The electoral college elected the President.
The people elected Congress.

And the only thing Westminister we do in the U.S. is a dog show. Which group do you belong to.

Was it always that way? Why did it change? What purpose did it serve and did it benefit the people or hinder them? The discussion I have brought up deals with this.

I know where the constitution is now. My objection is to the interpretation and the allowance of such violation of its intended design to come to fruition.

That is, it is only a dog show because we made ourselves the animals to which jump through hoops for our masters. We used to be the masters ourselves.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Nomander

Without the 17th, they would have a more immediate control over their senators and be able to recall them immediately when they disregarded the people rather than waiting for time to encourage people to forget. Why do you think most politicians don't make any major decisions near election time? They are gaming the system.

Of course your argument assumes that state legislature are more functional and bi-partison than the national government, which they are not. One of the impetuses for passing the 17th Amendment was a recognition of what I have just stated. Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections for senate were deadlocked in 20 states. Now some may argue that this was a minor problem (how this was such a minor that 2/3rd of the state legislatures voted to change the formulation is beyond me) but in this hyper partisan era, I would prefer not to experience parts of state legislatures evacuating the state or conducting month long filibusters and other obstructionist tactics to avoid selecting the state's Senator.

Another issue, that I just don't have to research tonight is whether or not the states had the power to recall Senators as if they it was some sort of ambassadorial appointment. In my search tonight I can find a single reference to that power existing prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by Nomander

That is, it is only a dog show because we made ourselves the animals to which jump through hoops for our masters. We used to be the masters ourselves.

I keep reading statements and I keep hoping someone will point out this ere when this wasn't the case. Perhaps you can successfully point to this era in American history.

...selects the subscribe function.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by squarian

American political system makes the contrast stark, it has not passed without comment: fundamentally, the endless and "toxic tale of cruel dismemberment and government by crisis" is not about party or personality, but about the workings of the American constitution.

There's nothing wrong with the US Constitution, except that people like you don't get it.

Originally Posted by squarian

The fatal flaw to the Madisonian doctrine of separation of powers was always the possibility that the two active branches would simply fail to cooperate, to the extent of causing real harm or crisis.

It is not a flaw. The entire basis of the Constitution is provide for a smooth transition of government, and continuity in government to create stability, which is accomplished by preventing wild ideological swings to which the fickle populace whimsically fawn over.

The US is based entirely on a the Platonian concept of Republic.....
"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 Celebrities and the Media are pleased to tell them' (Mircea, 2003);...

.....to get a doctrine accepted or rejected it is only necessary to have it praised or ridiculed on Corporate-owned Network Newscasts, on Talk-Radio and Television Programs, by Celebrities, and by Political Pundits.


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."

The US Constitution does not grant any person the right to vote; it only bars the States from precluding people based on certain conditions.

There's a reason for that....many people don't know their head from a hole in the ground...peruse the many forums here if you want proof.

The House of Representatives represents the voters, not the people. At the time, voters were land owners. Representatives are elected every 2 years.....to reflect the whimsical and fickle nature of people. The House was given power of the purse, but that power is checked by the Senate and the Executive Branch.

Unlike the House, whose members are elected en masse, the Senate is elected by alternating thirds....thus 2/3 of Senate is not up for re-election at the same time, to prevent fickle whimsy from destroying the US.

Senators were also originally appointed by the State legislatures, and not directly elected. That makes sense if you understand that only the Senate can ratify a treaty, and only the Senate can confirm appointments to the Supreme Court and Cabinet.

A treaty, such as an FCN (Friendship, Commerce & Navigation Treaty) doesn't directly impact individuals, but it does impact the States....whose economies may be adversely affected by such treaties. The same could be said for other treaties related to diplomatic affairs, especially those concerning allies.

Since treaties, rulings by the Supreme Court, and policies implemented by the Cabinet can also adversely affect a State, it's just common sense to give the States representation via the Senators they choose.

Originally Posted by squarian

The original conception of the presidency as the weaker branch, for the most part compliant with Congress' commands, might have made such a possibility less dangerous. But the original Madisonian design is not the constitution we have: the century-old imperial presidency with its much greater sway and power than anything Madison and Co. ever envisioned makes the possibility of a crisis of separation of powers much more serious.

Oh, that's rich....you violate the Constitution and then complain that the Constitution does not work.

Originally Posted by squarian

But what's the solution?

Restore the Constitution......that is the only option for your salvation as a country over the near, short, mid and long term Future.

Originally Posted by squarian

It's too late to adopt the natural alternative, Westminister parliamentary democracy, under which our present condition of government by permanent crisis would be impossible.

That's effectively one party rule with no checks and balances.

The idiot non-starter who wrote the article does not understand the three times of political structures....

1] Federal System
2] Confederal System
3] Unitary System

A Unitary System can only be used when you have a clan, or a tribe, or a nation, or a nation-State....because all of those things are just like the other....homogenous.

Even the freaking dumb-ass savage genocidal slave mongering spear-chucking tomahawk-throwing arrow-shooting aboriginal tribal groups here in the Americas had the common sense and were smart enough to know the difference between a Federation, a Confederation, and a Unitary State and organized their political structures as such...

...so how stupid is the author of the article?

Incredibly stupid.

The freaking Algonquin had the common sense to set up a Confederation, because they knew that operating a Unitary State with different ethnic groups, languages and cultures would be destructive.

So how stupid is it that Liberals and other morons have been attempting to crow-bar the US into a Unitary State?

Originally Posted by squarian

Despite the fantasies of originalists and teavangelicals, it's inconceivable that we will ever return to the old congressional system. The only way out is to take the logic of the last century to its conclusion, and give the imperial presidency sufficient budgetary power to end the possibility of a situation like the one we are now in, of permanent fiscal crisis.

It's probably only a matter of time before something similar is made a permanent feature of the working constitution, because handing more power to the plebiscitary elective monarchy headquartered at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is the only way to solve the "separation of powers" stalemate.

Wrong conclusion.

If the Federal Government followed the Constitution, then the Federal Government would only be dealing with issues of foreign policy, diplomacy, defense, coining money and international commerce.

Let's compare San Fransisco with Cincinnati.

Two people, each receiving $1,100/month in Social Security Disability or Retirement....

equals $2092.95 per month in Cincinnati
equals $761.07. per month in San Fransisco

Suppose those two people were not on Social Security...suppose they earned the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour....then their gross monthly income would average $1256.67 per month.....and so....

Federal Minimum Wage in Cincinnati = $2,389.77 per month
Federal Minimum Wage in San Fransisco = $660.12 per month

The "federal" Food Stamp program......$400 each to two families of four ends up like this...

$578.13 worth of food in Cincinnati.
$210.23 worth of food in San Fransisco

That is why government is failing......government is failing the very people it is suppose to serve....

......$400 each to two families of four ends up like this...

$578.13 worth of food in Cincinnati.
$210.23 worth of food in San Fransisco

...how is that a win for America?

How is the federal minimum wage....Federal Minimum Wage in Cincinnati = $2,389.77 per month
Federal Minimum Wage in San Fransisco = $660.12 per month

...a win for America?

Restore the Constitution....Liberals lose.....but America wins.

That Liberals are willing to sacrifice Americans, stomp Americans to the curb, and throw Americans under the bus in the name of their ideas is unconscionable.

The fact that Liberals are willing to do that while simultaneously screaming the "Constitution is defective" is Stalinesque, if not Göbbelesque.

The Statute of Limitations for Frauds begins upon discovery of the fraud.

You have a good fraud claim against your high school government teacher -- who fraudulently masqueraded as, and impersonated a teacher, and the school administration and school district who misled your parent/guardian by passing themselves off as "competent." Look into it.

Neither amused or impressed....

Mircea