Posted on 07/14/2004 7:48:27 AM PDT by ambrose
Looks that way... then again, it never did take very much to get Ditka to blow his stack. If here were to go in politics, I think he'd be happier as a mayor or governor, who has real executive power. All a Senator does it pontificate and engage in endless debate.
Not sure whos fault it is but FOX just reported that he has decided to not run, whether it is about Drudge is another story. Really how serious was he?
He might have decided that 3 months was not enough time to get experienced.
"What the #@$%#@$^ are you talking about! This bill is about medicare reform, not gun control! Shut the @#%@# up you moron!"
Why would he bow down when they're both on the same level?
Ditka is pro-gun-control.
Folks, remember this information is being presented to you by a slightly biased reporter!!!!
Folks, remember this information is being presented to you by a slightly biased reporter!!!!
That is pretty simple. Those who sit in the UNITED STATES Senate as UNITED STATES Senators are not merely representing State interests but those of the entire UNITED STATES. They were never really there to represent State interests but, like the House of Lords it was analogous to, permanent National interests. It is a misconception that the Senate was to represent the States.
Certainly one who proports to be an "old style Constitutionalist" (whatever that is) realizes that there were no restrictions within it limiting monies to candidates to that raised in-state. I mean the Constitution didn't even require those selected to the Senate or elected to the House be residents of the state from which they are elected until their actual election.
First amendment protections apply to all groups or individuals who wish to participate in campaigns outside their own states. Thus your preference cannot be considered
to be constitutionally based nor that the Founders wanted an individual to limit his concern to one state. Quite the contrary.
Because the Founders never intended for the party system, such as we have now, to have taken root. The political system in this nation of states is rather like watching rival gangs or high school football teams, for that's about the mentality, competing. No matter who believes what, it's more of a game of king of the hill and 'we' have to be in control. You talk about the intent of the Senate and what it was to represent and not to represent. It is an absolute misconception to state that the Senate was not to represent the states.
Agreed, it was to be about the business of the national government, but with the concerns of the citizens from the respective states. For your argument to be valid, we may as well pull all Senators from one pool located in one place. But the Founders saw that, even with national business, the view of someone from Georgia may be different from the view of Delaware. Those views would shape the national policy. The intent of the system was not to play musical chairs or to rustle up a warm body just because they had the right letter by their name. But that's what it's become.
You can thank Jefferson and Madison for the creation of the modern political party as a national enterprize.
Examination of the Constitutional Convention notes verifies that my statement wrt the Senate being there to represent the permanent National interest is entirely correct. Just because it has been said over and over that it was there to represent the States does not change the facts. Now it is true that many Senators believed(and acted as if) they were there to represent States' interests but that was the secondary intention.
Senators could very well have been chosen from one pool since the Constitution does not forbid that. In fact, as early as the 1790s we saw the instance of Rufus King, a Mass. native, being appointed Senator from New York.
Why would one believe that only Senators were to represent States when Representatives were elected within the particular states as well? Why wouldn't they represent States just as well? Even the original method of Senatorial appointment points to the fact that they were analogous to the HoL and not elected by the People just as the HoL was not.
It is a common misconception of those who have not studied this issue extensively that Senators were to represent State interests. They are unaware that our government was set up with divided power to simulate the British structure: King- Pres., House of Representatives- House of Commons, Senate- House of Lords.
I have read many of the same documents. And I know the intent. As well as the intent of the one that looked to President, or Governor, as a king and even put forth his idea in the Convention. I am quite aware of what type of government ours was fashioned after and thank God that one man's view of reestablishing a monarchy was not accepted by the Convention.
Even the original method of Senatorial appointment points to the fact that they were analogous to the HoL and not elected by the People just as the HoL was not.
Of course they weren't elected by the people. A much better way originally if you ask me. But who were they nominated and elected by then? The state legislatures. Are you suggesting the state legislatures would not nominate someone, perhaps from within their own ranks, who would at least take some interests of the state legislatures to the federal level? The Senators would look to the interests of the national government with the interests of the state from which they came in mind.
Your misstatement of Hamilton's views are indicative of those who willingly attack one of America's greatest heroes.
Hamilton's description of the president as kind of king was merely pointing out the fact that an EXECUTIVE is a FORM shared by Kings and Presidents. He never advocated monarchy and, in fact, fought for freedom FROM monarchy his entire adult life. It is a flat out LIE that he EVER advocated a king. Hamilton warned repeatedly that only from an excess of democracy would a kingship arise. And it is also a fact that Hamilton played a greater role in the creation and adoption of our Constitution than ANY single man even Madison.
Given the status of many state legislatures there is no real advantage to having them elect senators. Most are filled with petty, penny-ante crooks whose collective wisdom cannot easily pour p... out of a boot with directions written on the heel.
How do you get the idea that I believe Senators would not "take some interests of the state legislatures to the federal level?" All I have maintained is that the primary duty of US Senators is to the United States not to a state. They all have state concerns which they pursue but hopefully not at the cost of National concerns. Your last sentence concurs with my beliefs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.