Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/17/2019 3:57:27 PM PST by Liz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last
To: Liz
The relative authority of the state and the national government is contested, but the states retain something.

States were supposed to retain everything — everything except those very few, limited powers expressly provided for the federal government.

2 posted on 12/17/2019 4:01:48 PM PST by FoxInSocks ("Hope is not a course of action." -- M. O'Neal, USMC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

Democrats want to neuter the Senate because it protects small, rural states.

They are for the tyranny of the majority.


3 posted on 12/17/2019 4:03:26 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

Don’t like the rules, change them.

And good luck with that.


4 posted on 12/17/2019 4:04:01 PM PST by Jeff Chandler (BLACK LIVES MAGA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

Learn To Code.


5 posted on 12/17/2019 4:04:41 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change with out notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

The author does not like the design of the Constitution.

There is a process, called the Amendment process.

I cherish federalism and the checks and balances.

They were not put in place merely to give the states power, but to allow the states to check the power of the Federal government, and the majority of people.

Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny.


6 posted on 12/17/2019 4:05:34 PM PST by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz
I knew this was coming next, these leftists are so evilly predictable.
10 posted on 12/17/2019 4:07:42 PM PST by cowboyusa (America Cowboy Up)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

Kill The 17th
&
The 16th Too

11 posted on 12/17/2019 4:07:43 PM PST by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz
The Senate represents states, not people. That’s the problem

Well, that was the original design. However, since the people now elect Senators, they are more beholden to their constituency, rather than the State.

So his premise is practically, not ideologically, incorrect.

12 posted on 12/17/2019 4:07:45 PM PST by ShadowAce (Linux - The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

Article really says nothing. They don’t like representatives from states making decisions. Maybe we should have a nationwide referendum on every decision? Obviously unworkable.
Just because representatives represent fewer people than senators still doesn’t mean they always reflect the popular will even in their own districts. Much less the common good.
Guess we shouldn’t have a president - that’s a single person representing every single citizen!
Boy those founding fathers sure were dumb! Epic /s


13 posted on 12/17/2019 4:08:02 PM PST by Williams (Stop Tolerating The Intolerant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

Whatever.


14 posted on 12/17/2019 4:08:49 PM PST by dfwgator (Endut! Hoch Hech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz
Thou shall bow down to the wishes of the coastal liberals. We will continue whining until said wishes are granted.

Just look towards California to see how well their system works - collapsing bridges, collapsing spillways, breaks in water delivery systems, criminal raids from sanctuary cities into the surrounding areas. These are the fruits of the Reynolds v Sims decision changing the California senate from representing the various areas of California to being apportioned by population.

It was a mistake to change the senate from being chosen in a manner decided by the states to one of popular vote.

In the end, Democrats are returning to familiar territory - wanting the slaves back on the plantation to work the harvests and provide for their needs; their voice is less than liberal’s voices, and must be squelched.

I wonder how loudly they will scream if Blacks don't give them 98% of their vote in 2020...

15 posted on 12/17/2019 4:08:52 PM PST by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

Trump won 32 states. That means 64 Senators.


19 posted on 12/17/2019 4:12:47 PM PST by griswold3 (Democratic Socialism is Slavery by Mob Rule)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz
I've got an idea...let's pass two Constitutional Amendments. One to eliminate the Senate and the other to eliminate the Electoral College.

And while we're at it we can lower the voteing age to 12,give the Supreme Court ultimate authority over the Armed Forces...

21 posted on 12/17/2019 4:17:51 PM PST by Gay State Conservative (The Rats Can't Get Over The Fact That They Lost A Rigged Election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

Senators do no represent the state anymore. They are voted by the people. Senators SHOULD be appointed by the governor or better yet, state Senators. Then they would have to answer to the state. Such as it is they answer to the biggest donor


22 posted on 12/17/2019 4:23:00 PM PST by wiseprince
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz
States had even more power in the first few decades under the U.S. Constitution and in the early years of our nation, in several ways. The most obvious was the manner in which states had authority over the way their Senators were selected -- either popular election, appointment by state legislatures (very prevalent back then), or maybe other methods.

Less well known was that many states didn't even have Congressional districts when the nation was first established. House districts didn't become mandatory for all states until the 1820s (I think). Before that, states could apportion their House members however they saw fit ... and many of them simply had at-large House members who represented the entire state. If Connecticut had 10 seats in the House, for example, they would simply hold a vote with dozens of candidates, and the top 10 vote-getters would represent the entire state in the House.

Interestingly, I'd make the case that Congressional districts have made state borders less meaningful than ever. A House district in western Massachusetts, for example, is likely to be represented by a Congressman who is far more similar to his neighboring Congressman in upstate New York than to the nitwits who represent the districts around Boston. In this sense, the U.S. Senate is even more critical now than ever before because it's the only representation people have that binds them to the other people in their own states.

23 posted on 12/17/2019 4:24:19 PM PST by Alberta's Child ("In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

I don’t consider myself a state citizen first because I am free to move around the country. I do however try to avoid entrenched blue states. While I am a resident of a particular state, I do make efforts to participate in the political process. I discovered the importance of that when a nearby city of 100K produced only 3K (three!) Voters during an election. Those voters passed some bad legislation for that city. 97 thousand people were stuck with the bad decisions made by a few.

The problem is that the people are supposed to be represented by their representatives, but they aren’t. The reps vote according to their own political ideologies rather than the desires of the people. A once per year around election time town hall doesn’t cut it. But then, it’s also difficult to get the town’s folk to sit in on a city counsil meeting. Therefore, the other half of the political equation is...We, the people.


24 posted on 12/17/2019 4:24:23 PM PST by PrairieLady2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

Another leftest whining about the way they think things SHOULD work, rather than the way the law says that it does.

Cry baby, cry...


26 posted on 12/17/2019 4:35:44 PM PST by Agatsu77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

We would never have had a Constitution, and thus a united country, but for the Great Compromise. Some states (the smaller ones) wanted 1 legislative body, with representation being 1 vote per state. The larger states wanted one house with strictly proportional (based on population) voting. Both would have adversely affected the other group of states, so the Great Compromise was to give us BOTH. So each state (then and in the future) would have representation based upon being a state (with 2 votes in the Senate) and based upon their population in the House of Representatives.

That has worked well up until now (though it worked better before the 17th Amendment, when state legislatures directly appointed the Senators), but this guy wants to changed it - and the only reason is to enforce a tyranny of the majority. Might as well do away with the entire Bill of Rights while your at it - because those rights (pre-existing our government) are protected against 99.99% majorities (unless previously repealed, and thankfully none of them have been).

Screw this Leftist jackhole - all that he and his fellow travelers want is to run this country like a bunch of dictatorial philosopher kings. Well, sorry, no kings for us in the USA, philosophers or not. That’s what the 2nd Amendment helps to protect us against.


28 posted on 12/17/2019 4:40:37 PM PST by Ancesthntr ("The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." A. E. van Vogt, The Weapons Shops of Isher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

“States as states do need representation in the federal government. Under the Constitution, they have far too much. “

FEDERAL government

As in FEDERATION

Federation of what?

STATES


30 posted on 12/17/2019 4:43:35 PM PST by VanDeKoik
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Liz

It is definitely the time to repeal the XVII Amendment that permitted the population election of senators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


31 posted on 12/17/2019 4:45:37 PM PST by GreyFriar (Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-34 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson