Kill The 17th
&
The 16th Too
Posted on 12/17/2019 3:57:27 PM PST by Liz
States were supposed to retain everything — everything except those very few, limited powers expressly provided for the federal government.
Democrats want to neuter the Senate because it protects small, rural states.
They are for the tyranny of the majority.
Don’t like the rules, change them.
And good luck with that.
Learn To Code.
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.
Julia needs to learn to code.
Democrats want totalitarian power.
Correct. And since the 17th Amendment, states have not had enough power. The author has it completely upside down.
Kill The 17th
&
The 16th Too
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.
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
Whatever.
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...
Yeah. It ain’t a glitch, it’s a feature. ‘Rats need to learn to live with it.
If you shouldn’t represent a state because it’s not “democratic” enough, then we shouldn’t have a President.
And what about that crazy unelected Supreme Court? Guess mob rule would be better.
Didn’t those founding fathers think of any of this stuff? /s
Yes. Young people have no clue, that the 17th eroded states' rights. It used to be that people in a state elected others who selected state senators, to truly represent their state's interests. That died with the 17th. Now senators are voted in by people representing a culture having nothing to do with their state, and those senators vote in lock-step with that culture. The Democrat culture is particularly nasty in not representing a state's interests.
Trump won 32 states. That means 64 Senators.
Don’t like the rules, change them.
So, Hans & Julia, don’t like the Senate, write a new Constitution, and try and get the people to back it. I suppose you can get rid of that pesky 2nd Amendment while you’re at it.
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.