- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: What is your argument for two senators per state in modern times?
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:21 am to SammyTiger
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:21 am to SammyTiger
quote:
You feel that way which is why you pretend to care about the sovereign rights of a bunch of empty land.
That empty land, flyover country, feeds the urban dwellers. Piss us off enough and we'll be fine and you will starve.
State representation is as much about natural resources. While, say, Iowa does not have a large population we produce a sizeable chunk towards this nation's food supply. Same could be said for West Virginia and coal production, etc.
Just because a state doesn't have a large population doesn't mean it's interests should be ignored because each state contributes in different ways.
0
Posted on 7/10/22 at 11:28 am to SammyTiger
quote:It's not empty land. There are people that live there. And they have virtually nothing in common with urbanites. Without a equal-apportionment component, they will have no voice in the government.
You feel that way which is why you pretend to care about the sovereign rights of a bunch of empty land.
It is telling that Democrats, self-crowned champions of "the little guy and minorities" dont' really care about them when their priorities don't align with an leftist ideology.
This post was edited on 7/10/22 at 11:31 am
Posted on 7/10/22 at 12:08 pm to bird35
quote:clear as a bell - its like those asking this question are admitting they don't have a clue.
States only were willing to give authority to the Federal Government when things like two senators per State and the electoral college were put in place to ensure small States kept a voice.
or a care about freedom of a diverse republic comprised of states
They stopped teaching constitutional civics about the time they started teaching CRT?
This post was edited on 7/10/22 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 7/10/22 at 5:45 pm to baybeefeetz
All the states, not just the small ones, were (and still are supposed to be) sovereign.
In the Virginia plan, and as it finally became accepted in its final form in the Philadelphia convention, the Senate was intended to serve two functions. First, it was to maintain the federal nature of the Articles of Confederation by maintaining representation of the states in the general government. In a federal republic, the general government is a creature of the states and acts as their agent. Very, very few people in the country would have accepted any form of government which they did not believe would maintain such a federal republic because they saw the sovereignty of the states as the ultimate protection of their liberty against a distant government and were only interested in forming such a general government for purposes of common defense and handling affairs with foreign countries (that is, countries not part of the Confederation).
Second, within this general government, the Senate was intended to moderate transient passions (think gun control laws passed in the wake of highly sensationalized murders) so that laws would only be passed after careful consideration. At the time it was not gun control but things like laws allowing requiring paper currency which those advocating for the Senate had in mind. They saw the Senate as being made up of the aristocratical class so as to protect against an emotional majority making laws that threatened the property of the wealthy (and therefore ultimately everyone).
Madison and the rest of the delegates from the large (most populous) states, wanted the number of votes and senators for each state to be proportional to the population of the state. However, Madison argued that the number of senators should be small to enhance their prestige in the beleif that this would make it harder for them to be corrupted.
Under the Articles each state had one vote but could send between two and seven delegates, all of whom could be recalled or instructed as the state saw fit and were also term limited. In the new constitution the states would each get two Senators and two votes and would be chosen by the state legislatures. To enhance the aristocratical nature of the senate, there was no recall or term limits.
In the Virginia plan, and as it finally became accepted in its final form in the Philadelphia convention, the Senate was intended to serve two functions. First, it was to maintain the federal nature of the Articles of Confederation by maintaining representation of the states in the general government. In a federal republic, the general government is a creature of the states and acts as their agent. Very, very few people in the country would have accepted any form of government which they did not believe would maintain such a federal republic because they saw the sovereignty of the states as the ultimate protection of their liberty against a distant government and were only interested in forming such a general government for purposes of common defense and handling affairs with foreign countries (that is, countries not part of the Confederation).
Second, within this general government, the Senate was intended to moderate transient passions (think gun control laws passed in the wake of highly sensationalized murders) so that laws would only be passed after careful consideration. At the time it was not gun control but things like laws allowing requiring paper currency which those advocating for the Senate had in mind. They saw the Senate as being made up of the aristocratical class so as to protect against an emotional majority making laws that threatened the property of the wealthy (and therefore ultimately everyone).
Madison and the rest of the delegates from the large (most populous) states, wanted the number of votes and senators for each state to be proportional to the population of the state. However, Madison argued that the number of senators should be small to enhance their prestige in the beleif that this would make it harder for them to be corrupted.
Under the Articles each state had one vote but could send between two and seven delegates, all of whom could be recalled or instructed as the state saw fit and were also term limited. In the new constitution the states would each get two Senators and two votes and would be chosen by the state legislatures. To enhance the aristocratical nature of the senate, there was no recall or term limits.
Posted on 7/10/22 at 5:50 pm to baybeefeetz
Your best argument is that 49 states have followed the Fed government’s lead.
Posted on 7/10/22 at 5:56 pm to baybeefeetz
There are some things that have been said or suggested that aren't quite correct which one should know if you really want to understand the reason for and the value of, the structure of the Senate as it is.
First, one can't really understand the nature of our current constitution without understanding its predecessor the Articles of Confederation, and the context of the Philadelphia convention and the period leading up to it.
Second, it isn't really correct to attribute the current constitution to Madison. Madison did come up with the outline for what became the Virginia Plan which the Virginia delegation discussed and then submitted. But the final result was quite different.
Third, the delegates to the convention were not supposed to come up with a new constitution but only to come up with a list of proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation and then this list would be reported back to the states which would then instruct their delegates in congress how to proceed. Several delegates left when they saw that the convention was ignoring the explicit written instructions many of the states had given their delegates in this regard.
Fourth, it is an insult to Madison to lump him in with Hamilton and his ilk. It is true both were part of a group that labeled themselves as "Federalists". However most federalists wanted a government that was much more national than federal (what we now have) where the states were secondary. Some (Hamiltonians) wanted to completely eliminate the states. Regardless, they called themselves Federalists and their opponents (the true federalists) "Anti-federalists" because they knew that the overwhelming majority of the population strongly supported a federal republic (as existed under the Articles). Hamilton was actually a monarchist and proposed an elected king for life as his form of a national (not federal) government at the convention. He said this was the most he thought could be pushed on the people for now but that his real preference was for exactly the British system.
It is also true that Madison and Hamilton worked together in writing much of the "federalist papers" (newspaper editorials and pamphlets) in opposition to those who opposed the proposed constitution over concern that it would lead to an overbearing central national (not federal) government which would destroy the sovereignty of the states and thereby the liberty of the people. Not long after the current constitution was adopted and Washington became president, it became obvious that Hamilton had flat out lied about his view of the proposed constitution when writing his contributions to the federalist papers. In the Federalist papers he took the position that the general government would be strictly limited in its powers and would not be able to invade state sovereignty. As soon as the the constitution was ratified and he became treasury secretary under Washington he showed his true colors by claiming that the constitution provided the general government innumerable "implied powers" (see the Jefferson-Hamilton debates over the national bank, debt, and taxes) to expand the powers of the central government just as the so-called "anti-federalists" had warned during the ratification debates. In effect, Hamilton took the position that the constitution was a "living breathing document". At this point realizing that the "anti-federalists" had been correct, Madison switched sides and joined the "republicans". (These were the Jeffersonian republicans who believed in a true federal system with a very strictly limited role for the general government with the states retaining virtually all power over internal affairs. This has nothing to do with the "Republican" party of Lincoln which believed the opposite and was the heir to the Hamiltonians).
First, one can't really understand the nature of our current constitution without understanding its predecessor the Articles of Confederation, and the context of the Philadelphia convention and the period leading up to it.
Second, it isn't really correct to attribute the current constitution to Madison. Madison did come up with the outline for what became the Virginia Plan which the Virginia delegation discussed and then submitted. But the final result was quite different.
Third, the delegates to the convention were not supposed to come up with a new constitution but only to come up with a list of proposed amendments to the Articles of Confederation and then this list would be reported back to the states which would then instruct their delegates in congress how to proceed. Several delegates left when they saw that the convention was ignoring the explicit written instructions many of the states had given their delegates in this regard.
Fourth, it is an insult to Madison to lump him in with Hamilton and his ilk. It is true both were part of a group that labeled themselves as "Federalists". However most federalists wanted a government that was much more national than federal (what we now have) where the states were secondary. Some (Hamiltonians) wanted to completely eliminate the states. Regardless, they called themselves Federalists and their opponents (the true federalists) "Anti-federalists" because they knew that the overwhelming majority of the population strongly supported a federal republic (as existed under the Articles). Hamilton was actually a monarchist and proposed an elected king for life as his form of a national (not federal) government at the convention. He said this was the most he thought could be pushed on the people for now but that his real preference was for exactly the British system.
It is also true that Madison and Hamilton worked together in writing much of the "federalist papers" (newspaper editorials and pamphlets) in opposition to those who opposed the proposed constitution over concern that it would lead to an overbearing central national (not federal) government which would destroy the sovereignty of the states and thereby the liberty of the people. Not long after the current constitution was adopted and Washington became president, it became obvious that Hamilton had flat out lied about his view of the proposed constitution when writing his contributions to the federalist papers. In the Federalist papers he took the position that the general government would be strictly limited in its powers and would not be able to invade state sovereignty. As soon as the the constitution was ratified and he became treasury secretary under Washington he showed his true colors by claiming that the constitution provided the general government innumerable "implied powers" (see the Jefferson-Hamilton debates over the national bank, debt, and taxes) to expand the powers of the central government just as the so-called "anti-federalists" had warned during the ratification debates. In effect, Hamilton took the position that the constitution was a "living breathing document". At this point realizing that the "anti-federalists" had been correct, Madison switched sides and joined the "republicans". (These were the Jeffersonian republicans who believed in a true federal system with a very strictly limited role for the general government with the states retaining virtually all power over internal affairs. This has nothing to do with the "Republican" party of Lincoln which believed the opposite and was the heir to the Hamiltonians).
Posted on 7/10/22 at 6:13 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
See Civil War
Countries that can’t evolve Tom more representative forms of government are prone to revolutions.
We didn't have a civil war in this country. A civil war involves one faction trying to wrest control of the government from another faction. The South had no interest in trying to take over the government of the North or to impose its will on the North. The southern states seceeded and Lincoln, in violation of the constitution, launched a military invasion of the South. The result was a revolution in the sense that the nature of the government was changed from a volunatry union of states in a more or less decentarlized federal republic into a highly centralized national government held together by threat of military force.
quote:
Monopoly of the minority isn’t better than monopoly of the majority. Also the intent to marginalize that wasn’t every state getting 2 senators. It was the president having veto powers and the SCOTUS having review of constitutional rights.
The equal representation in the Senate was intended to counteract the transitory passions of the majority that might endanger the rights of the minority. There was no idea of "constitutional" rights. The rights of the people were inherent from God. The Bill of Rights was understood as an explicit and redundant restriction on the general government but not as a source of those or any other of the innumerable rights which the people have regardless of whether a corrupt government infringes on them, or a good government protects them.
The people were the source of authority for the states and the states (and thereby the people) were understood to retain all powers not expressly delegated (this does not mean surrendered) to the general government. This was explicit in the Articles of Confederation, it was made explicit in the ratification documents of several of the states, and it was later added for clarification as the tenth amendment.
The idea the Supreme Court had the final authority to say what the constitution meant is not in the constitution. The court (actually Marshall, an ultra Hamiltonian who should have recused himself because of his direct involvement in the case) usurped this power to itself in Marbury vs. Madison. The states mostly ignored this view until after 1865.
The Supreme Court was intended to simply be the final court of appeals and the original court for a very limited number of circumstances. It was not viewed as some important component in protecting the rights of individuals, this was seen as the purview of the state governments which were to remain answerable to the people of the state and not (as has become the case) the general government.
Posted on 7/11/22 at 9:09 am to baybeefeetz
Not how arguments work. I don’t have to argue for the way things are. You have make the argument to change it.
But the 17th Amendment fundamentally change our republic.
But the 17th Amendment fundamentally change our republic.
Page 8 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News