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.
That not what this thread addresses. Certainly, all legislative bodies - federal, state, local - have the authority to levy taxes. What the thread addresses is the power under the Constitution, which is vested in Congress that is composed of our elected representatives.
so in other words lets go ahead and eliminate the senate, or at the very least make it further like the house of representatives. or we can just decide to let the largest states rule over the rest? yeah that will go over well. sorry, i prefer the congress set up as it was before the 17th amendment was passed. that way we could reign in the federal power grab, and give that power back to the states.
Like many of your persuasion you do not appear to be able to understand. The Senate appears to be a useful construct. But it is also absurd in the way it is elected.
So fix that and let the Senate run on into the future. You want a 100 person Senate? So elect a 100 people from roughly equivalent pieces of the US with roughly similar populations.
It might even be good that the districts do not align with State borders. Give a more global view to the Senate. Do the right thing for the US rather than a state.
Like many of your persuasion you do not appear to be able to understand. The Senate appears to be a useful construct. But it is also absurd in the way it is elected.
So fix that and let the Senate run on into the future. You want a 100 person Senate? So elect a 100 people from roughly equivalent pieces of the US with roughly similar populations.
It might even be good that the districts do not align with State borders. Give a more global view to the Senate. Do the right thing for the US rather than a state.
no you dont understand, the senate was the defenders of the states rights, which is why there are two senators from each state. it was designed to make each state equal. the house is where the representation is variable by population because the house is the peoples house. and you are right we should go back to installing senators pre 17th amendment.
no you dont understand, the senate was the defenders of the states rights, which is why there are two senators from each state. it was designed to make each state equal. the house is where the representation is variable by population because the house is the peoples house. and you are right we should go back to installing senators pre 17th amendment.
You mean defend RI and Wyoming against the rest of the country? Why would we want to do that?
The Senate system is simply absurd. It survives because there is no rational way to change it. But once you open the question you have to deal with it. RI is not equal to California.
You mean defend RI and Wyoming against the rest of the country? Why would we want to do that?
The Senate system is simply absurd. It survives because there is no rational way to change it. But once you open the question you have to deal with it. RI is not equal to California.
one more time, the senate was set up to prevent the rights of the minority from being trampled upon by the majority. that is why each state has two senators and thus has an equal vote in the senate. what more needs to be said to make that clear to you?
one more time, the senate was set up to prevent the rights of the minority from being trampled upon by the majority. that is why each state has two senators and thus has an equal vote in the senate. what more needs to be said to make that clear to you?
The Senate was set up to defend a situation that no longer exists. It presumed all states were created equal.
All states are not created equal any longer and have not been so for many years.
Given that the states are no longer equal there are two obvious choices. Weigh the voting or recreate the states into some which are at least mostly equal.
Why would you continual to defend a concept which is simply no longer true? Why are small populations worth vastly more in RI and Wyoming than in CA or TX?
The Senate was set up to defend a situation that no longer exists. It presumed all states were created equal.
All states are not created equal any longer and have not been so for many years.
Given that the states are no longer equal there are two obvious choices. Weigh the voting or recreate the states into some which are at least mostly equal.
Why would you continual to defend a concept which is simply no longer true? Why are small populations worth vastly more in RI and Wyoming than in CA or TX?
The existing system is simply absurd.
the senate was set up for the state as a WHOLE
a senator REPRESENTS the state as a whole, answering to the mayors and governor
a senator REPRESENTS the state as a whole, answering to the mayors and governor
the whole state , not just a small district
Two Senators from Wyoming represent 576,000 people. Two Senators from CA represent 38,040,000.
That is a Wyoming resident has 68 times as much influence in the Senate as does a CA resident.
68 to 1 is simply outside rational limits.
So yes we have Senators representing small districts...like Wyoming and Rhode Island and Alaska.
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.
