Posted on 01/03/2015 3:00:56 PM PST by 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:
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Elected by the state legislatures not appointed by the state governor. The only time a governor appoints a senator is in the case that a senate seat is vacant.
The State of Greatlakesia – a district a few miles wide, adjacent to all the Lakes .... That way, you encompass all the big Dem cities e.g. Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo etc. ;-)
Two concepts that Mr. Dylan missed in his Civics and American History classes:
1. Checks
2. Balances
These concepts, embedded in our republican form of democracy are what makes for American exceptionalism.
It stopped being “democratic” when career politicians took over.
The uneducated ignorant writer has the “negative” emphasis backwards. Its not that the deck is stacked “in favor of the small states”, it is that the design of the Senate representation is set to help insure it is not stacked “in favor of the big states”, that is states that are “big” merely in numbers of people. That’s because it is not the “people’s House. That’s the role of the House of Representatives. The Senate was established as the body representing the states, as entities with their own representation in the U.S. Congress. As originally designed, they were not even selected by “popular vote” but chosen by the state legislatures.
The writer that seeks to abolish the Senate has no idea what he’s talking about. What he sees as an error is not an error at all.
Yup. Every federal country has an appointed or elected Senate. I guess according to Dylan Matthews’ logic, they are “anti-democratic and should be abolished.”
Federalism represents communities of interests as well as people. But some liberals have a profound contempt for people living in small states, rural areas, small towns and places like Alaska.
Because in part of course, the real reason being that they won’t vote for the Left. Then let’s just get rid of any one who isn’t living in a big city. Now that’s a principle every good progressive can get behind.
After all, to them, untrammeled majoritarianism is the essence of democracy.
the author need to read up on tyranny of majority, 3 wolves and 1 sheep deciding on what to have for lunch. In a color blind society, small states are the minorities who will be oppressed by big states
Constitution says “chosen by the legislature” of each state.
Because, as I've stated a million times, the U.S. House represents population interests, and the U.S. Senate represents geographic interests. Congresswoman Shelia Jackson-Lee will never be Senator Shelia Jackson-Lee, because being a legislator from Texas means completely different things in the House and Senate. House districts are vastly different in their constituency than the state has a whole.
Ironically, your comment proves that the anti-17thers pretty much agree wholeheartedly with the liberal subject of this article ("Wahhhh! Abolish the U.S. Senate if it's members aren't chosen the way I want!"), albeit for completely different reasons.
It would actually make more logical sense to abolish most of the STATE Senates, since UNLIKE the U.S. Senate, there really IS no difference between their legislators and state house legislators. BOTH represent population interests (my state house district = gerrymandered to elect a Chicago Democrat, my state senate district = gerrymandered to elect a Chicago Democrat) But of the course the anti-17thers seem to think things would be sooooo much better if those state Senates had even more power.
I wonder the same about you. No need for law school. A basic constitution test is required just to pass High School. (hint: "Democracy" does not mean mob rule where 51% of the people have absolute power to do whatever they want, and "Republic" does not mean a state under the rule of law that protects the rights of individuals and minority groups.)
YOu misunderstand my point.
The critics, like this author, are proposing to make the Senate, if it is retained, represent population not territory.
If they were to succeed, what would be the point of retaining two Houses, as you explain in your discussion of state legislature, where it really does make no sense.
A little late, but yes, you’re right.
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.