Vox Writer Wants 'Anti-Democratic' U.S. Senate Abolished

NewsBusters ^ | January 3, 2015 | P.J. Gladnick

[PJ-Comix]

WAAAAAAH!!! I don't like my Windows 8 so I think I'll dump it!

Okay, no big deal. Most of us are not pleased with that operating system. However, Dylan Matthews of General Electric Vox displays the same glibness which, while perhaps appropriate to switching computer operating systems, is completely absurd when wanting to toss over 200 years of constitutional federalism overboard by deciding to abolish the U.S. Senate because he has decided it is "anti-democratic." Here is Dylan making the case that the Founding Fathers were in error:

[Sasparilla]

“Unicameral Parliament? Bicameral legislature? Separation of powers? Dylan would be totally confused by your post

[PIF]

The ‘right’ thinking left believes the Constitution sounds like right-wing talking points ...

[Iron Munro]

I guess that also means we have to redraw the boundaries of the states to make them all the same size, and people will have to be resettled so that every state has the same number.

An alternative will be for FEMA to relocate people to balance the numbers.

I'm certain there are several plans already drawn up to do exactly that.

[FatherofFive]

"We are a very different country than we were 200 years ago," Clinton said. "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it's time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president."

I would love to hear this in a debate with hiLIARy:

"Mrs. Clinton, the President of the United States swears to 'Preserve, Protect and Defend the Constitution of the United States. That requires a basic knowledge of the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees a Republican form of government. Please show me in the Constitution where the word Democracy is ever used. I have a copy here if need one."

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

Who cares what this pip squeak has to say about anything?Never heard of her....it.

[Paladin2]

Why not just move straight to the People’s Rupublic of Cuba?

[NorthMountain]

OF COURSE the Senate is “anti-democratic” That’s the point, and the founders’ intent. It’s republican, and was even more so before the misguided 17th Amendment was passed. The anti-democratic Senate is supposed to be one of our defenses against the horrors of democracy.

[Paladin2]

Wyoming should improve the quality of their Senators.

[Iron Munro]

He hasn’t thought this through to the ultimate conclusion.

The senate would then be more like the House of representatives which is generally more conservative.

Imagine what would have happened to the democrats agenda the last two years if the senate had the same republican/demmocrat ratio as the House.

[Paladin2]

We already have the best Senators money can buy.

[DJ Taylor]

“Sorry, I don’t have a copy of the Constitution handy to check.”

Here you go. Use mine:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

[BenLurkin]

Apparently Dylan doesn’t understand that our Republic is a union of fifty sovereign states.

[lowbridge]

Was the author all for abolishing the senate when the democrats controlled the majority or does he have this sentiment only when the republicans control the senate majority?

[INVAR]

Looks like the love child of Jonathan Gruber and Pajama Boy.

[Bob]

Thanks. I couldn’t recall the exact wording.

[Amendment10]

The low-information Vox writer unsurprisingly overlooks the following about the Senate. The Founding States had intended for legal majority voters in a given state pay for and enjoy as many “government” services as they authorize their state - not the federal government - to tax and spend for.

More specifically, the Founding States had given constitutional control of the federal Senate uniquely to state lawmakers. This was done partly so that the Senate could kill any House appropriations bill which established taxes for issues which the states had never delegated to Congress, expressly via the Constitution, the specific powers to address. This is because House appropriations bills which cannot be justified under Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers arguably steal state revenues. Justice John Marshall had put it this way.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

But as a consequence of the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A), low-information voters, voters who have probably never been taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers including limited power to tax, are now regularly tricked into abusing their voting power by corrupt federal politicians who promise such voters federal spending programs which are based on constitutionally nonexistant federal government powers.

Again, basically as a consequence of 17A, the corrupt feds are stealing what are arguably state revenues by means of constitutionally indefensible federal taxes which the corrupt, voter-controlled Senate fails to stop. The Founders had intended for the states, not the corrupt feds, to provide most domestic “government” services.

[doorgunner69]

Geez, male or female? Racial Madcow is more masculine by far.

[Bob]

Thanks. Bookmarked.

[Leaning Right]

I assure you they could gerrymander something up to their liking in no time at all.

Now that could be interesting. Chicago and Detroit in the same state, perhaps.

[Leaning Right]

Hillary Clinton: "I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people...

I wonder if this dunce realizes that the USA is officially a republic, and not a democracy. And I wonder if she even knows the difference between the two.

If Hillary had gone to law school, she would be aware of all this. Oh, wait a minute. She did go to law school.