quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Seems to me that the direct appointment of Senators was designed to ensure that the sovereignty of the States was maintained, and that the rights of the people were not infringed.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Seems to me that the direct appointment of Senators was designed to ensure that the sovereignty of the States was maintained, and that the rights of the people were not infringed.

Firm

Seems to me you need to study a little more history.


U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development ...


Framers either praised Maryland’s long terms for checking lower house democracy or feared them for the same reason, while some members of the convention believed even five-year terms were too short to counteract the dangerous notions expected to emerge from the House of Representatives.

In June, James Madison, Edmund Randolph, and other convention delegates cited Maryland’s experiences when they argued for long Senate terms.  According to Madison, Maryland’s senate had never “created just suspicions of danger.”

Far from being the more powerful branch, the senate had actually yielded too much, at times, to Maryland’s House of Delegates. Unless the Senate obtained sufficient stability, Madison expected a similar situation under the new Constitution.  He suggested terms of seven years or more to counter the influence of the democratic House of Representatives.

Randolph believed that the primary object of an upper house was to control the more numerous lower house.  He noted that Maryland’s senate had followed this principle but had been “scarcely able to stem the popular torrent.”  Seven-year terms, then, had a greater chance of checking the House than terms of five years or fewer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

First, you might benefit from some deeper study about the compromises inherent in the establishment of the Constitution.

quote:



Second, your quote surrounds the argument about an appropriate term of service for a Senator, not about the establishment of the Senate in the first place.

quote:



Third, you might study the history of "democracies" and why we were formed as a "republic" instead of a democracy.

quote:


You make it rather difficult to have an intelligent discussion about these issues, especially when you claim so loudly that you are correct, when your ignorance is so apparent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Ignorant is what you would say, stupid is what wilbur would say..
Both of you think your're smarter than anyone else.
You are both wrong

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Ignorant is what you would say, stupid is what wilbur would say..
Both of you think your're smarter than anyone else.
You are both wrong

It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Ignorant is what you would say, stupid is what wilbur would say..
Both of you think your're smarter than anyone else.
You are both wrong

Okkkkkay,

This is again an extract from the Federalist papers:

(I realize, as a Canadian, that you may not be familiar with them, but they are pretty much required reading for anyone who wishes to understand the origins and reasons behind our original Constitution, but ... what-the-hell ... rml doesn't understand them either, and he's a citizen ...)

It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient.

Does this sound like it is "the people" that were not trusted, or that a second legislative house would act as a check on politicians who might forget that their place was to represent "the people"?

It's called "checks and balances", not "we don't trust the unwashed scum who are the public".

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

The way I was taught, "checks and balances" referred to the balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

However, I am naught but an smug, ignorant, elitist leftist.  Oh yeah, immoral and unpatriotic too.  Oops, and let us not forget, emotional and incapable of rational thought.

(bundling up a few of the various statements made in the thread)

Checks on the Legislature - because it is bicameral, the Legislative branch has a degree of self-checking.

• Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress
• House must originate revenue bills
• Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house
• All journals are to be published

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

The way I was taught, "checks and balances" referred to the balance between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

However, I am naught but an smug, ignorant, elitist leftist.  Oh yeah, immoral and unpatriotic too.  Oops, and let us not forget, emotional and incapable of rational thought.

(bundling up a few of the various statements made in the thread)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuzanneKneeling

I don't hate the Constitution, Joe Miller does.  He's the one who wants to change it.  As it currently exists, we the people vote for our Senators.  He wants to change that.  Is there some part of the story that was especially confusing for you?

The Constitution allows for amendments as times change.  That's what happened in 1913.  Miller and the teahadists want to go back and undo that (and who knows what else).  If we went back to the way the Founders started, we would have slavery.  And only property-owning white men would vote - and even then they couldn't vote for president or their senators.    Do you really want to go back to 1789?    Be careful what you wish for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

I want to abolish the House as it curently exists.

And replace it with a national vote. A vote for Party ona national scale. This would give the small parties a voice, and force coalitions.

The Senate would remain as it is the Elected represenatives of the people for the states.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

I want to abolish the House as it curently exists.

And replace it with a national vote. A vote for Party ona national scale. This would give the small parties a voice, and force coalitions.

The Senate would remain as it is the Elected represenatives of the people for the states.

You're talking about a Parliamentary system?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg

I want to abolish the House as it curently exists.

And replace it with a national vote. A vote for Party ona national scale. This would give the small parties a voice, and force coalitions.

The Senate would remain as it is the Elected represenatives of the people for the states.

You're talking about a Parliamentary system?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: playfulotter

I saw a funny bumper sticker yesterday afternoon on a car that was in front of me....

"Tea parties are for little girls with imaginary friends"

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

I'd suggest you research the difference between "stupid" and "ignorant".

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Okkkkkay,

This is again an extract from the Federalist papers:

(I realize, as a Canadian, that you may not be familiar with them, but they are pretty much required reading for anyone who wishes to understand the origins and reasons behind our original Constitution, but ... what-the-hell ... rml doesn't understand them either, and he's a citizen ...)

It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient.

Does this sound like it is "the people" that were not trusted, or that a second legislative house would act as a check on politicians who might forget that their place was to represent "the people"?

It's called "checks and balances", not "we don't trust the unwashed scum who are the public".

Firm