General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAmerica will never solve its gun problem until it gets over its fetish for the Founding Fathers.
Last edited Fri Sep 20, 2013, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)
Blood on the Constituion
America will never solve its gun problem until it gets over its fetish for the Founding Fathers.
"Frankly, having the world's oldest written constitution is not something to be proud of. As my Georgetown colleague Mike Seidman wrote in a 2012 New York Times op-ed,
Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse. Instead of arguing about what is to be done, we argue about what James Madison might have wanted done 225 years ago.
As someone who has taught constitutional law for almost 40 years, I am ashamed it took me so long to see how bizarre all this is. Imagine that after careful study a government official -- say, the president or one of the party leaders in Congress -- reaches a considered judgment that a particular course of action is best for the country. Suddenly, someone bursts into the room with new information: a group of white propertied men who have been dead for two centuries, knew nothing of our present situation, acted illegally under existing law and thought it was fine to own slaves might have disagreed with this course of action. Is it even remotely rational that the official should change his or her mind because of this divination?
The word "divination" is appropriate, because much of what passes for constitutional debate in this country has more in common with theology than law. Americans spend an inordinate amount of time arguing about how best to interpret the Second Amendment, but the real question -- the one we should be asking -- is this: Why are we so fixated on a 226-year-old piece of paper?
Political theory has advanced a good deal since 1787. We now have decent social science research on the pros and cons of different voting systems and different judicial systems; we can now measure and evaluate the impact of different political and legal regimes in ways the framers could not. Most other nations have had reason to develop new constitutions over the last two centuries, for the simple reason that structures and rules that once made sense often make far less sense when circumstances change.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/18/blood_on_the_constitution?page=0,1
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LuvNewcastle
(17,812 posts)convention now, we'd likely never agree on the contents of it. We'll have to wait on the GOP to go through what it's going through to get anything meaningful done in this country. When we see a re-alignment take place between the parties, that will be the time to get it done. We're much too divided right now; even some blue states have a lot of Republicans. We probably won't have solid majorities in the House until after the next census, when new districts will be drawn. I want to see us draw up a new constitution, but it just can't be done now.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)just as all Red states have a lot of Dems.
Any election result over 60-40 is considered a landslide. That means 40 percent of Blue state residents are repukes, and 40 percent of Red state residents are Dems. (There may be a few outliers like Utah and Idaho.)
Also, Red states are only as Red as they are because of gerrymandering. In purple North Carolina, more votes were cast for Dems than repukes for Congress last year, but gerrymandering gave the repukes 9 of 13 seats. A similar result occurred in generally Blue Pennsylvania.
samsingh
(18,418 posts)selling guns to those who have bought into the coolaid that they will somehow protect them.
the problem is how the words are being manipulated by gun proponents.
ThePushmataha
(3 posts)There are parts of this Country were you do need guns to protect your family because the local legal system is so corrupt. You are literally on your own. I think the following video shows this to be true.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Against a scary all seeing Government watching and controlling us. We need it more than ever.
coldmountain
(802 posts)The Constitution only protects the powerful.
dkf
(37,305 posts)questionseverything
(11,823 posts)we do not oversee our counting of votes or our reporting of results.....so maybe it is not the voters fault at all
dkf
(37,305 posts)On the other hand I do watch "scandal". 
questionseverything
(11,823 posts)we documented the "moving numbers"
we asked every election official from the county to the state,trying to find a reasonable explaination
from the article...So What The Hell Is Going On?
It's taken a week or so of going from one election official to another to to unwind the mess, and only some of the anomalies detailed above were finally explained.
In trying to sort it all out, The BRAD BLOG spoke to a clerk at the Secretary of State's office, the State's Director of Elections and, on the local level, the Monroe County Clerk, Election Commissioner and Elections Coordinator. None of them were able to explain the most troubling aspect of the numbers.
State Election Director Carter Hawkins was able to explain the reason for the 0% undervote issue, in both the May 19th numbers, as well as the later, officially certified numbers of May 25th.
He told us that the way Arkansas calculates turnout is by adding up votes cast in the largest race (or, in the case of a primary election like the one on May 18th, the largest race in each party's election), discounting all of the overvotes and undervotes, and using that number as "voter turnout."
"We are the only state that does that," Hawkins said, acknowledging the misleading nature of discounting voters who may have either chosen not to vote, or didn't have their vote counted --- for any number of reasons --- in the top race. Doing it that way certainly makes it difficult for citizen-oversight and spotting problem areas where there may be an unusually high number of undervotes, due to machine malfunction or foul play.
"We are working to revise the way we calculate turnout," he told us. "That's one of my goals for 2011."
As to the impossible May 19th results and the subsequent, staggering change to the final numbers as certified by the county, nobody seems to be able to explain them.
"It could be data entry errors," Pam Ratliff, a clerk at the Sec. of State's office guessed when we first contacted them. "The only thing I can tell you, I didn't do that, so I don't know," she said before promising to have Hawkins call us back the next day.
treestar
(82,383 posts)What about the laws that have been passed, from civil rights to a social safety net, upheld by the courts, too?
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)It so frustrates them that they make shit up, like saying that the only reason we included the second amendment was to suppress slave uprisings.
When I find the time and patience, I will post something putting that distracting theory to rest.
To associate racism with the RKBA is a very low tactic.
As you say, we need the constitution more than ever.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I'm sure the right wing would have all sorts of changes they would loooove to make.
sarisataka
(22,670 posts)these articles always picture the actions going the way they would like if there was no Constitution. There are other possibilities:
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)General Discussion is going to have more and more of these types of articles posted and I refuse to sit by and not refute them
But I want to be solid in my history, there's research to be done.
CTyankee
(68,173 posts)She said that she wouldn't recommend the US Constitution as a model to a newly emerging democracy, she would instead recommend the constitution of South Africa.
One of the most glaring omissions in our constitution is the lack of specificity for women's rights, which are more specifically enunciated in more modern democratic countries' constitutions (something Ginsburg referred to in the article also). Yet the yahoos in this country saw to it to defeat the rather mild ERA!
Our present constitution fits the ideal of some of the posters here on DU, most prominently RKBA promoters largely because of the Heller interpretation, but that is a group of one issue voters here (I wonder if most of them even post anywhere else on DU?).
Our Constitution is out of date for today's reality and unworkable for our society. Women, progressive men and minorities would benefit from a constitutional overhaul...
DonCoquixote
(13,957 posts)For example, a lot of people would love to retune the first amendment; it would be toothless in a week, making sure that anything that offended anyone would get jail time.
CTyankee
(68,173 posts)a major overhaul (if not complete removal) of the 2nd A, something I advocate openly here. At least the 1st A has a time, place and manner restriction, something I point out to our RKBA folk who call for absolute purity of their interpretation of the 2nd A.
Decaffeinated
(556 posts)We can't pass a freaking budget... What makes anyone think we could come up with a comparable document nowadays..
Not a chance...
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)The Constitution came this close to non ratification because of it. It is also the seeds of the second civil war. The Revolution can properly seen as a civil war.
There is plenty of work on this. It's not a low tactic to recognize the origins, or why gun control, see California, has become a priority when blacks arm themselves. See Reagan and the Black Panthers and Oakland.
Today it is not about slavery. That I will accept. But in 1789, you bet it was.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Let's first agree to disagree, because this will not change, but for others who might read this, I'd like to respond to the Bogus report.
The Bogus report you site is Bogus, it's bunk, it's been debunked, it's done. It's narrow minded, biased, and agenda driven.
Academics can be low, you betcha. Academics are just fucking people, warts and all, and some of them are downright crazy.
Anyone can get a degree or two, and be published, it doesn't make what they say valid.
So.
What bears scrutiny is not the question of whether or not 'some element' liked the idea of suppressing uprisings, or that the second amendment might have been a useful chip in the negotiations, but, rather, what other reasons were behind it.
I'll be preparing a post and journal entry when I have the time that will detail background for the second amendment going back at least as far as the Magna Carta.
To be sure, the Second Amendment was designed to facilitate deployment of militia as may be needed AND as an individual right for purposes of self defense.
Let there be no question about this fact.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)And that is something about academia and academics.
Great people, professors. The best I've had, however, had careers in architecture, engineering, consulting, etc., and were not authors, speakers, etc., like Bogus.
Not always, but often, professors are not there for the money, they're there for their egos, because they're lazy, and/or because they have no creativity or anything to offer that would get them real work.
Often. Not always, not even mostly.
This type of academic, Bogus, reminds me of lifetime wonks like Manny Davis.
Self promoting hack, ready to jump on any topic that can draw attention.
His revisionist shit pile about the Second Amendment has become a cottage industry. Overview here: http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/bogus2.htm
To hold someone like that in high esteem just because they are a professor is, IMHO, a foolish mistake.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)It does not support the interpretation of the RKBA folks. And that is not the only one in academic writing. It is a well known fact it came this close to not being ratified. I guess the compromise is also bunk and fiction invented by historians.
You are right, we won't agree.
Have a good day b
Cerridwen
(13,262 posts)I'm researching a bit on this and I have found many Congressional Records that support what Bogus and others have said but I haven't yet found the debunking parts. I hate getting only half the story.
Thanks.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)As I mentioned in my reply, when I have time I'll prepare a post, with links, and post it in my journal.
Clarification: the intent isn't to disprove any fundamental facts or sources but rather to challenge his conclusions.
IMO, Bogus has cherry-picked his citations and left out any number of historic elements that suggest several other influences that, if included, would make his thesis less persuasive.
So I'm not going to have a "valid link to the debunking" anytime soon. Many of the articles I've read I've failed to bookmark, so would have to go out and find them.
If I happen to find something in my off time, I'll pass it along.
This is a shitty year for me and time is scarce, on top of work I'm settling the household and estate and belongings of my parents who died this past February and March and I have no help in doing that.
An estate sale will commence next Saturday, so I'm working my ass off, have to leave Sunday to be in Barstow Tuesday and Oxnard Thursday and back home Friday.
I want the post to be well written, so I'm not going to rush it.
Cerridwen
(13,262 posts)I've lost several family members these past couple of years. I'm still trying to sort out the keep and discard and donate stuff; with little help and much interference.
Post 'em when you got 'em.
Thanks.
CTyankee
(68,173 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Congress is as dysfunctional as it is because of it (winner take all) Why John Stuart Mill came up with proportional representation. We need to at least move to Mill's system to elect representatives to Congress. It would require the unthinkable, an amendment.
The same dysfunction was seen before the civil war by the way, for similar reasons.
That is a more glaring problem than even the second and suppresses the vote. People who live in red or blue districts, that are far from competitive, simply stay home. Why bother? Gerrymandering also has it's roots in this document. Proportional representation would lead to the rise of multiple political parties, formally.
To say that we have a document that should be respected without question is actually part of the problem. It was within it that the seeds for the first civil war (not the first rebellion, or last by the way) were. It is where the seeds of what could be a second major civil war will be.
Of course, the country is a collection of regions, with dramatically different cultures as well as interpretations. This is far from just urban vs rural. If we sink into another open civil war, and if the country does not break up, it's high time to bring it up to the modern age. Jefferson would understand. He indeed wrote that it was not set in stone and it needed change every twenty years. Ironically that is almost once a generation.
There is also a reason why more modern constitutions do not enshrine how you elect people to office in the document. They look at us and shake heads.
A successor document will need something akin to the bill of rights. I think we can safely say the third article can safely be ignored by the way and removed. But things like the 2nd will also need to be either highly modified or removed in it's present form. Why? We no longer have slavery either. That is the true origin of it, and the Southern delegation insisted on it. They actually threatened to walk out. Yes, there is a plot for an alternate history of the US where the south and north start as two independent countries.
Whether the country survives as one nation or not will also determine the fate of the First and separation of Church and State. I can safely predict Christian successor states if the country breaks apart, as well as secular states. And I could go on. If we really respect those men, they were humble enough to understand it was a living document. We forgot that. We really have.
It is not a sacred text given to man by god, but a flawed document in desperate need of major changes.
coldmountain
(802 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)That's all changed.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You freely admit the government violates the Constitution but you want the citizenry disarmed?
devils chaplain
(602 posts)It's just not used anymore. As a whole I'd say the document has served us pretty darned well.
CTyankee
(68,173 posts)to blacks and women with the vote. So historically, that document didn't serve us well at all...
devils chaplain
(602 posts)CTyankee
(68,173 posts)our nation's founding! And we were the last democracy to outlaw slavery! Read your history books!
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)n/t
sarisataka
(22,670 posts)since the current form of the army was established via US Code, could the existence of a large permanent army be found unconstitutional...
I think a pretty good argument could be made
TransitJohn
(6,937 posts)I'm sure I'm oversimplifying things, but that's my take.
sarisataka
(22,670 posts)The president is the Commander in Chief and Congress shall have the power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.
The clear intent is no standing army. Also States are supposed to appoint the Officers of the Militia.
Taken as a whole, in my non-lawyer opinion, the States should maintain Militias under standards set by Congress who may call them to form an army. If the Militias are needed for longer than two years, Congress would have to reauthorize the mobilization.
That would be a fun one to have a front row seat in SCOTUS 
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)The problem is exactly the same as we see in program development, and we created a very effective system to deal with that many years ago. The U.S. Constitution was an alpha, it was The Alpha. Where we went and continue to go wrong is in failing to understand that it, like every alpha release, is not a finished product.
After 170 years of mangling by parasites and In its current state of dysfunction, it is largely irrelevant.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Oh, wait. The founding fathers would have disapproved of that.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Having 2 senators per state is just plain stupid, given that states vary drastically in population. And the house has it's problems also. Not to mention the electoral college.
Unfortunately, the constitution isn't changing any time soon, barring some kind of major crisis.
dkf
(37,305 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like I said, the house has its problems also. First, there's gerrymandering. Second, even without gerrymandering, it favors certain groups over others simply because of patterns of population. That's why you have a GOP majority even though most people voted for house Democrats.
There are much better ways to elect representatives than either the house or the senate.
dkf
(37,305 posts)All I'm saying is that judging from the makeup of the house your idea would not be favorable to Dems.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)One possible way to do this. In every state, each party submits a slate of representatives. Voters vote for a party, and the number of representatives from each party is proportional to the popular vote in the state. Doing it state-by-state like this would still preserve the geographic diversity of representation. This would not only result in a congress more representative of the population, but it would also make it a lot easier for third parties to get members into congress.
I'm not judging the fairness based on whether or not there are presently more Dems that Repubs. I'm judging based on the fact that it is plainly absurd that people in Wyoming have 50 times more influence per capita in the Senate than people from California.
You haven't answered my question. Do you honestly think the Senate is a good/fair way to represent the people?
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Do you know that Brooklyn has 5 times as many people as Wyoming?
Imagine if, instead of rural conservative states being grossly overrepresented, it was boroughs of New York. There would be 10 senators from Brooklyn, 8 from Queens, 6 from Manhattan, 4 from the Bronx, and 2 from Staten Island. 30% of the senate would come from NYC. That's basically how out of proportion things are in the senate.
furious
(202 posts)from running roughshod over the less populated states, it's part of the checks and balances of our system of govt..
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It makes absolutely no sense at all today. Why should the 600K people of Wyoming have 2 senators to protect them, while the 2.5M people of Brooklyn have to share 2 senators with other 17M people in New York State? Are people in Wyoming somehow more vulnerable than people in Brooklyn?
furious
(202 posts)Every state should have an equal say in the political process and that's done by each state having the equal amount of senators, otherwise our govt. would be dominated by those states senators that have the bigger populations.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I think every person should have an equal say, regardless of where they live. I don't think people who live in Wyoming are more important or more valuable than people who live in California.
furious
(202 posts)Every state should and does have an equal say in our govt just because of this checks and balance of our form of govt., it prevents the domination of the more populated states over the less populated states.
My state is sparsly populated compared to NY or CA, why should my state have less of a voice in the congress than those 2 states?
Hardly seems fair to me, I want my state to have just as much of a say as any other state, no matter what the population is.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The current system does treat people in Wyoming as more valuable than people in California -- they have over 50 times more power.
Each person should have equal say, regardless of what state they live in. I get that this is our form of government, but I'm saying it is bad. If Wyoming gets 2 senators to prevent them from being "dominated" by other states, why doesn't Brooklyn, which has 5 times as many people, also deserve at least two senators. Why does Wyoming deserve more protection than Brooklyn?
furious
(202 posts)Wyoming and NY each have an equal say in govt, which is the way it should be.
If what you want comes to pass, then the smaller states would be dominated by the bigger states, how is that equal representation?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The people of Wyoming get 2 senators all to themselves, while the people of Brooklyn, who outnumber Wyoming by 5-to-1, have to share their senators with another 17 million people.
Who stops Brooklyn from getting bullied? Why are people from Wyoming so special that they get 2 senators to protect them?
randome
(34,845 posts)I agree that it's no longer a valid way to run the country. Screw states' rights. What is best for the country as a whole?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Completely different life styles. Completely different environments. Everything from education to work to retirement is different. Why should CA have more of a say about what goes on in WY than people in WY do?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I think each person should have the same amount of representation in congress. Why should people in Wyoming have 50x more senators per capita than people in CA?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Ergo we are divided into geographic regions called states. Those states are part of a collective union. But the more populated states don't get to rule the roost. They have to share equally with the less populated states so all states can, together, decide what is best for the union with each state have equal reps in the Senate but proportional in the House.
Have you noticed that the house with proportional reps is also the house that is re-elected in its entirety every 2 years while the Senate is divided into thirds and serves for 6 year terms? This is all very deliberate. It's meant to curb power and put the brakes on laws created from public passion rather than political discourse.
Everything in the Constitution is about dividing and limiting power.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I know how the government works. I'm saying it's undemocratic, because some people have far more representation than others. Just because "that's the way it is" doesn't mean it's right.
Dividing power is great, but you don't need to give some people 50x more power than others in order to divide it.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The chuckleheads in CA have proportionate representation -- in the House.
So how do the people in WY preserve their equal representation as a state?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The whole notion of "equal representation as a state" is flawed. What matters is that every citizen should have equal representation. That is a fundamental concept in a democracy, and giving states equal representation requires some citizens to have more political power than others, which is undemocratic.
The population of WY is about the same as Fresno, CA. Other than the fact that you personally don't like them, why shouldn't people in Fresno have just as much representation as people in WY? There's simply no justification, other than the fact that "that's how it is".
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)No more than I have a right to tell them how to run theirs.
Urban Californians are clueless about life in the mid-West. They don't know. They have no frame of reference. No more than people in WY could understand the lives of urbanites.
What makes you think one size fits all? And how would you protect the rights of mid-westerners from having their lives overrun by policies favoring CAians? You keep assuring us it's possible but no suggestions are forthcoming.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)You evidently dislike Californians so much that you think they should have less representation in congress. Simply because the mid-west is split into a bunch of states with tiny populations doesn't mean that they should have 20 times as many senators per capita as Californians.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Tell me how you would keep them from exploiting that to their advantage.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What about Fresno, CA? Why don't they deserve special protection like Wyoming? Why are the people in Wyoming so special? What keeps Fresno from being exploited?
Or what about Staten Island, NY, which also has about the same population as Wyoming? Why don't they get 2 senators to protect them from exploitation? Why do they have to share senators with the other 19 million people in NY, whereas WY gets two senators for 500 thousand people. What makes them so special?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)least populated state.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Either way, a state's size shouldn't affect its citizens' equal representation in the national congress. If Fresno prefers to share governance with the rest of California, that doesn't mean it's citizens should forfeit the right to have just as much say in national policy as people in Wyoming.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)So long as YOUR homogenous unit has a few more dozen million votes than other people's homogenous unit. How convenient ... for you.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Of course, even if a state were a homogenous entity, it wouldn't justify the grossly undemocratic allocation of power which you are a proponent of.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I think WY and the rest of the mid-west states have a right to force CA to break-up into equal population units so they can protect their interests.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't think the people in CA should be able to tell the people of WY how to organize their local government, or vice versa. And I certainly don't think that the way their local governments are organized should affect how much representation they have in national policy.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)wouldn't be proposing the schema that you are. You want strictly proportional representation in congress because of the benefits to you locally. So if we're going to be equal let's go all in. Why shouldn't Fresno be it's own state if it is as populated as an entire state?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It is a local issue, and should be decided by the people it affects, which is the people who live in CA. I don't think anyone except for the people of CA should decide how to organize the local government there.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)CA would have the same number of votes in the house even if it broke into smaller states.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)"Okay gang, we have a $50 billion dollar infrastructure project ready to disburse. How are we going to split this?"
How many votes does CA get to WY's? How much money is left to WY?
What if CA is split into 20 separate states?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Each mini-state would get 1/20th of the infrastructure funds that CA would have gotten.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You're assuming what has never existed. The expenditure scheme is proposed and the states vote. If you want to pass the senate you have to include the lesser populated states in process -- as it was designed.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Whether CA splits up shouldn't affect how much representation they get in congress. They should split up if they want to and not if not. Neither is justification for denying them equal representation. Likewise, if WY decides to merge with Montana, that's nobody's business but theirs, and certainly people in New Jersey shouldn't be able to make that decision for them.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)If not tell me by which voting mechanism the tangibles will be divided.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's really not that complicated. I want people who live and Fresno and and people who live in Wyoming to have equal weight. Why is Wyoming more important than Fresno?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)That is how political power is divided. Federal funds for projects aren't disbursed per capita, few things are. The reps of each state have to horse-trade with other states to get their bills. You keep claiming a two-faced equation: reps by pop. but pop. by single political entity. You want all CA reps to be able to vote money away from WY but you won't allow WY to break-up CA.
Your thievery is exactly why the founders designed the system as it is. They saw you coming from 200 years away.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm actually pretty surprised that people are having trouble grasping what is a very basic concept. But I'm not too surprised that the people who don't get it seem to be the gungeoneers.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)You seem reluctant to address it under the terms you propose.
If CA gets 20x the number of votes in congress than WY what is to keep CA from stealing from the other states?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)People in Wyoming don't deserve any more or less protection than people in Fresno. What makes Wyoming more worthy of two senators than Fresno, CA? Why do you believe that WY is entitled to special protection in the form of 2 senators for 500K people, while the 500K people in Fresno have to share their senators with another 30 million people?
What's to prevent the rest of the country from ganging up on Fresno?
Until you can answer why you think people in Wyoming are more important than people in Fresno, you don't have an argument.
The fact of the matter is, every minority is vulnerable to being ganged up on in a Democracy. But you only seem to care about people who live in Wyoming, to the detriment of those who live in Fresno, or El Paso, or Staten Island, all of which have the same population as WY, but don't have anywhere near the same amount of influence in congress.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)We are a republic, national policy is not decided by referendum. It is decided by the representatives of the states. States are the political entities by which votes are allotted in congress. You cannot ignore that fact and CA agreed to that when it petitioned to join the union.
If CA gets 20x the votes WY does then what is to stop CA from stealing from WY?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'll keep repeating it as long as you keep ignoring it. Why does Wyoming deserve more protection than Fresno? The only answer you have is because you like Wyoming more than Fresno.
I think that WY and Fresno should have equal protection. Equality is key. If everyone could be king, that would be great, but that's not possible. Yes, tyranny of the majority is a risk in any Democratic system, but what is staggering about your opinion is that you truly only care about some minorities to the detriment of others. As long as you've got yours, you could care less about people who live in Fresno and Staten Island.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Does Fresno have it's own National Guard? No. Okay, so it's no where near the same political division as a state. Fresno cannot supply all its own needs, hence it belongs to a wider political entity called a state.
So now the question becomes: how much power do equally situated political entities possess?
And yes, if CA agreed to the terms of joining the union they are obligated to abide by those terms. I'm not sure which bizarre world let's you think you can ignore your obligations but somehow impose obligations on me and expect me to passively accept them.
And that being said here is your even stickier wicket: you want to change the voting scheme; but how will you do that? CA votes 20 times to change it to your favored while WY only gets to vote once? Just by proposing it your tyranny over others who would reject your scheme becomes manifest. And really, that's all this is. You want the power to run roughshod over other states without having to consider them. You want to impose on people your policies even if those policies are detrimental to them and you couldn't care less how it effects them. You can take their money, their resources and won't even pay them the consideration of a voice in how they are governed.
What you are proposing is nothing less then the practical equivalent of neo-colonialism.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Surely you're not suggesting that the fact that Fresno is a city and not a state means that the people who live there don't deserve as much of a voice as those who live in Wyoming? Or maybe that's exactly what you are saying!
The whole argument based on "equally situated political entities" is preposterous. Once again, yes, I understand that in the status quo the people of Fresno are not "equally situated" with the people of Wyoming. That's my whole point! The current system is horribly undemocratic and unequal, and that's wrong. All citizens should have an equal voice, regardless of how "politically situated" they are.
Your extreme deference for the current allocation of power is troubling, and reminds me more than anything of people who were born with priviledge and come to feel entitled to more than others. Though I haven't heard any 1%-ers come up with a justification for inequality quite as Orwellian as your "equally situated" thing, so you get points for creativity. As in, yeah, "some people make billions while others starve to death, but they aren't "equally situated economically", so you can't really compare them..."
As far as accusing me of neo-colonialism, the only response here is WTF? You are the one that believes that some citizens should have far more power than others simply because of some arbitrary political constructs that were agreed upon centuries ago. I, on the other hand, think that the traditional power structure that allows some people to have more influence than others is not nearly as important as the one-person, one-vote principle. And, despite cheering on this grossly unequal system, you are accusing me of neo-colinialism? Whaaaaaa?
You don't actually care about "minority rights", which is why you can hardly bring you to acknowledge the existence of people who live in Fresno or Staten Island. You only care about the rights of people like you.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)How come Fresno doesn't have a National Guard force the same size as WY's or a state bureau of investigation? How come CA's governor and legislature can exert influence over Fresno that Fresno can't exert over it's smaller neighbors? If Fresno suffers a disaster it can't go to the feds; only the governor can on its behalf.
Golly! It's like a whole system of government has been based on political divisions of graduating scale!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Using the fact that the current power structure is, in fact, the current power structure as an excuse for its injustices and inequalities is a purely circular argument. Ironically, this is exactly the argument that colonial powers would use to justify denying people living in colonies equal representation. I.e. "this colony was founded to serve the king and the people are his subjects and blah blah blah".
Whether or not Fresno has its own state bureaucracy is entirely tangential to the question of whether the people who live in Fresno deserve equal representation in the national government to anyone else. To deny citizens an equal voice in national political affairs simply because their local governance structures are set up one way and not another is undemocratic and unjust.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)income inequality. The point being, the fact that the current power structure provides for unequal representation doesn't make it right. Just as the fact that the current economic structure provides for severe income inequality doesn't make that right either.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Please feel free to illustrate how your proposed system would answer the very basic governmental scenario of dividing funds for infrastructure. If billions were on the table for shoring up roads and bridges throughout the nation how do you ensure CA doesn't keep all the money while allowing WY to fall into ruin?
If you're so certain your solution is the awesomest thing in the history of awesome then consider this your opportunity to demonstrate how awesome it really is. Don't worry about my system. Assume you won the debate and subsequent constitutional convention and tell us about how your system makes the nation better.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)in the Senate than people in Fresno or Staten Island.
I have no idea why you think that people in Wyoming need 50x more senate representation than people in Fresno in order to get their fair share of infrastructure spending. You do realize that not everyone can have 50x more representation than everyone else? Everyone can't be the king. So when you give some people more representation, that means you are reducing the voices of other people. I think everyone should get an equal shot an infrastructure spending. I don't see why Wyoming needs such a leg up over Fresno and Staten Island.
In reality, predictably, low-population red states are net recipients of federal dollars, whereas states like CA and NY pay more in taxes than they receive in federal spending. And I guess you don't care about the fact that the people of Staten Island, with their very low per capita representation in congress, might have a little more trouble than the people of Wyoming if, say, a devastating hurricane hit upon them.
But this is more about the principle of equal representation than it is about the consequences. It still bewilders me that you can actually believe that some people deserve more power simply because of where they live.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Tell us how your system would keep federal funds from being horded by high population states at the expense of other states.
Tell us about the awesome fairness of your system.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Like I said last post, tell my why you think the people of Wyoming need 50x more representation than those of Staten Island or Fresno in order to get equal federal funds. Do you really think that people in Wyoming are so politically inept that they need such a huge advantage just to break even?
I disagree. I think people of Wyoming are just as savvy as people in Staten Island, and I think that in an equal system, they will end up with equal funds.
I think that if everyone has equal representation, then not just federal funds, but all forms of national policy will be more equitable, and will more accurately represent the will of the people. As I pointed out, in the current system, federal funds are not in fact equally distributed, but instead the favor red states to the detriment of states like CA and NY. WY is a net recipient, and CA and NY are net donors.
PS You do realize that California is only about 10% of the American population, right? If you seriously think that 10% is going to dominate everyone else unless Californians are denied equal representation in national government, you are seriously deluded. If anything, the real question is what is to prevent the 90% of America from hording all the money away from California (which is what is actually happening).
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)It's pretty clear that you don't like the idea of the unequal representation of the people embodied in the US Senate.
Why do you think the people that hammered out the agreement, and the people that agreed to it, put the concept of the Senate in the Constitution in the first place? Was it just a bad idea from the get go? Why did they even go there?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not opposed to having two chambers, but I also wouldn't be opposed to having just one, provided that it were fairly and proportionally represented. And BTW, the house has a lot of problems of it's own -- for example gerrymandering. If I were redesigning the whole thing from scratch, I would go for some kind of proportional allocation system, something like this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3701797
As to your second question, you have to remember that 200+ years ago the US was more like the EU than to the nation it is today. It really was more of a union of sovereign states, each of which took care of their own affairs, and so at that time it might have made sense. But now, although the states might technically be "sovereign" in some historical sense, the reality is that they function more like provinces, and the real sovereign authority is the federal government.
Since it's come up in our discussion, you should realize that the whole issue of "how to secure federal funds" was moot at the time the nation was founded because there were hardly any federal funds to secure. Even into the early 20th century most government spending was at the local level. Compare that to now, where by far the federal government collects far more taxes and spends more far money than states and municipalities.
The fact that the federal government is much more influential in people's lives than when the country was founded justifies each citizen having an equal say in national policy.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Now we're getting somewhere.
But,
And it is pretty clear that you think it is time to change the Constitution to bring it up to what you think the reality is today, that the Federal government has evolved much more involved with the daily lives of all of it's citizens, including the things that were originally left to the then sovereign states. That now "The People" are sovereign.
On the other hand, there is a significant portion of the population that thinks we need to change the Federal government back to what it was originally intended to be. To change the government back to the way it was, not change the Constitution to reflect what is, to them, a flawed evolution.
That part of the population consists of the Tea Party, a bunch of Republicans, and the conservative parts of the population. They are opposed to your political philosophy. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them. Enough to make us so divided we can't even hardly pass a budget, much less the 2/3 and 3/4 super-majorities needed to amend the Constitution. It is what it is.
So I guess you can keep stating you opinion and pushing for change, if it makes you feel good. I suppose it's good that somebody is doing it. Me? I have other issues to deal with, but I don't have the energy and passion you seem to have to be so persistent.
Overall, I think this has been a pretty good thread.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Some might say that it's pointless to discuss things that are not going to happen, but I disagree with that. I think there is value in theoretical discussions. For example, I think it's worth discussing whether single payer would work out here in the US even if there is zero change that it would get through congress.
Discussions of political and economic philosophy are not the same as activism. And I happen to enjoy bouncing around ideas and having philosophical discussions. And also, realize that all many ideas that end up becoming reality start off as philosophical speculation.
That part of the population consists of the Tea Party, a bunch of Republicans, and the conservative parts of the population. They are opposed to your political philosophy. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them. Enough to make us so divided we can't even hardly pass a budget, much less the 2/3 and 3/4 super-majorities needed to amend the Constitution. It is what it is.
That's all very true. Unfortunately for them, we're not going back to the tiny federal government of the 1800s either. We're pretty much stuck with the status quo.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... his refusal, or inability to accept, or recognize, or even maybe grasp, the whole concept of sovereignty. He sees the people of the United "States" of America as actually the United "People" of America. He sees just one sovereign entity, and cannot and will not accept that there is multiple sovereignty within the agreed union. It's a nice, simplistic view, and one can wish that it were in fact the case, but it's not. Centuries if not millennia of political philosophy refute it. Truly, that's the way it is, and DanTex doesn't like it. I don't think he will change his mind. And that's OK. There are things I won't change my mind about also.
This is not a personal attack, just an observation after having participated in this long, interesting, and enlightening thread.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)He is not entitled to simply reject terms of the debate out of hand. There are times when I refuse to entertain the premise of some argument but I am still obligated to demonstrate why those terms are invalid. When he says, "I reject the sovereignty of states just because they are defended under the terms of 'just because'." It's self-contradicting at least and ignores the reality that they were designed that way for a practical and freedom-preserving purpose. As you say, "Centuries if not millennia of political philosophy refute it."
Thank you for your comments.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)"That's the way it is" is the definition of reality. I am no psychologist, but I believe refusing to accept reality is a symptom of some medical conditions. In any case, it's probably not healthy.
furious
(202 posts)it's about states representation.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What matters is the representation of citizens, which should be equal.
furious
(202 posts)Let's say for the sake of argument, that the president, any president, sends a proposal to the senate that's anathema to people of the midwest but CA and NY like it, so with their superior numbers, they manage to foist that onto the whole US, how is this fair representation?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Why are people in the midwest more important than people in NY and CA? What if the president sends a bill that is anathema to most Americans, but the senators from the midwest, representing a small minority of Americans, manages to force the bill onto the whole US?
The question you have yet to answer is, why do the people of Wyoming deserve special protection, whereas the people of Fresno CA or Staten Island NY, with approximately the same population, do not. Why is it OK to force legislation against Fresno and Staten Island? It seems like you only care about people in the midwest, and the rest of the country be damned.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Representation of the states is handled by the Senate.
"Representation of states" is not wrong. It is just not what you want. "Majority rules with minority rights" is a good thing and far superior to "majority rules without minority rights".
Passing legislation is not supposed to be an easy task, especially at the federal level.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It just arbitrarily shifts power from some citizens to others. The people who live in Staten Island are also a minority. Why don't they get the same representation as the people in Wyoming?
Again "that's the way it is" isn't a justification. The status quo isn't always right.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Staten Island citizens do get the same representation as Wyoming. In the House. Where that is the intension.
The Senate is not about the citizens. The Senate is about the States. The USA is a collection of states, not a collection of citizens.
It is sad that though this entire thread that you keep confusing all the explanations about why the current system exists as it does with "this is the way it has always been done".
DanTex
(20,709 posts)For the Nth time, the fact that the "Senate is about the States" doesn't mean that it is right or democratic. The people of Staten Island clearly have less Senate representation than the people of Wyoming, and that is obviously undemocratic.
Like I said above, it's really surprising that so many people have trouble grasping this very simple concept, but it is not surprising that the people with this problem are mostly gungeoneers...
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)"That is the way it is for these reasons ..." You just don't like the reasons. We get that.
> "Senate is about the States" doesn't mean that it is right or democratic.
Nor does it mean that it is wrong and undemocratic. "Democratic" is a sliding scale from "true democracy" to "extreme republicism". You just happen to not like the current location on the sliding scale of democracy.
If the country were to move toward a more true form of democracy for the Congress, you and your voting block (state) would gain more power due to being a larger voting block (assuming you are from Texas). Thus we can see why this "minority rights" thing frustrates you.
However, since you and your voting block (state) do not know what is better for me and my voting block (state), there is not a problem with forcing your voting block expend more effort to convince other voting blocks to work with you for the common good. This tends toward a truer definition of "common good" in the long run.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The undemocratic nature of the senate favors some people over others. Some minorities (such as the people of Staten Island) are even less represented than they would be in an equal democratic system. The way to defend against tyranny of the majority is not to take an arbitrary group of people and give them more power than anyone else. If that were true, then you should be celebrating the fact that the richest 1% have disproportionate control over government as "minority rights".
The whole notion of a state as a "voting bloc" is arbitrary and essentially just an excuse for giving some people more power than others. You might like this because you may be one of the people who has disproportionate representation, but that doesn't make it right, any more than the fact that Mitt Romney and the Koch Brothers like the fact that rich people have more power than poor people in our system of government.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)Your big complaint seems to be that the USA is a collection of states that are required to work together to pass legislation at the federal level whereas you would prefer it to be a large collection of citizens voting on national issues. Each has its pros and cons.
Your desire to cut out the restraints on the more populous states by the less populous states is normally not seen as a good thing; the concept is a sound one from the "collection of states" point of view. Wanting to change the implementation can have merits, but that is not what you seem to be wanting.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Just like the 1%ers, our current political system arbitrarily assigns some people (like you) a disproportionate amount of influence in congress. And just like the 1%ers, rather than simply conceding the obvious fact -- that the system is undemocratic and unfair -- you conconct some twisted rationale that justifies your privileged position.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)The less populous states have an advantage in the Senate.
The more populous states have an advantage in the House.
While I have not concocted any rationale on either side, I understand the reasons for this being done. I also think the reasons for both sets of advantages are good reasons.
That said, I am open to suggestions on the other methods of implementation of the current reasons. So far, in your debate you have failed to convince folks that the current long-standing reasons for the duel advantages are no longer valid.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)More populous states do not have an advantage in the house. The house is proportionally represented.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)the more populous states get to have more influence than the less populous states. For example, Texas vs Alaska. If you are suggesting that the common voting block called the state is not important in grouping the votes together, you are sadly mistaken.
Yes, the individual citizen is better represented in the House than in the Senate, but the Senate is not intended to represent the individual. That is the role of the House.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)And this is the governing principal for the House in allocating representatives.
And very much on purpose, this is NOT the governing principal in the Senate for representation.
The dueling advantages creates a nice balance.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)We have one democratic chamber of congress, and one chamber that arbitrarily assigns more representation to some people, and less to others.
If we had a third chamber of congress where representation was determined by family lineage, that would also be undemocratic. Although I'm sure that if your family was considered royalty, you'd find some rationale for why you should have more power than others, the way you seem to have been able to convince yourself that you deserve more senate representation than people from CA or TX or NY.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)From the point of view of the individual citizen, yes, the Senate is less democratically representative.
From the point of view of the State, no, the Senate is very democratically representative in that each state gets two representatives.
The House is tasked with the role of representing the citizens. The Senate is tasked with representing the states.
You seem to dislike that the Senate represents the states to the disadvantage of the individual citizens while liking that the House represents the individual citizens to the disadvantage of the states.
True democracies do not work on a large scale. Nor do near-true democracies.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)"From the point of view of the state" is nonsense. You could use the same logic to pretend that a feudal government was democratic because "from the point of the lords/aristocracy" each Baron or Count or Duke has the same representation. The very idea of measuring democracy by any other unit than the individual citizen is absurd.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)The folks that designed the federal government thought it was important.
The "essence of democracy" is a great guiding principal for designing a government. However, since true democracies don't scale well, some compromises need to be made in the process.
Simply complaining that the Senate is less representative of the individual citizen is just stating the obvious since it was purposely designed that way. If you think that states should have no representation in Congress, make that argument.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The whole point of this OP is that the people who designed the federal government were not infallible. They made some mistakes. Slavery comes to mind.
So we shouldn't just assume that everything that the founders did was right "just 'cause". Particularly since the world has changed a lot in 200+ years.
The fact of the matter is, nobody has come up with anything remotely resembling a justification for giving some citizens 50 times more representation in the senate than others. To suggest that this is some kind of "compromise" for scalability is absurd. It has nothing to do with scalability, it's simply an anachronism, and the only reason it continues is inertia. Kind of like the electoral college. But there's no doubt that it is a highly unfair and undemocratic system.
ManiacJoe
(10,138 posts)There are plenty of justifications. Either you do not know them (and choose not to educate yourself), or you choose to simply ignore them. If you don't like what is being presented here, go read an appropriate history book.
If you think the reasons for state representation in Congress are invalid in today's world, make that argument. Let's see your reasoning.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Why can't you or anyone else actually give a justification, rather than just hint that they exists. As for me, I've made myself very clear: I think every citizen should have equal representation, as this equality is a central tenet of democracy. A system which gives some people 50x more representation than others simply because of where they live is unequal, undemocratic, and unfair.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)There are others, you know. (Well, wait, .... maybe you don't.)
I don't think further discussion on this subject is productive. Have a good evening. (Seriously.)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Stop with the hinting and the suspense. If there is a rational argument, let's hear it.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)One last time. This has been pointed out to you several times, and you keep ignoring it because you don't like it and don't want to hear it because it doesn't fit your philosophy of "democracy."
THE SENATE WAS NOT INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE! IT WAS INTENDED TO REPRESENT THE SOVEREIGNS THAT FORMED THE AGREEMENT AND THE UNION. (You do remember, I hope, that originally the People did not even vote for Senators?)
Good luck with your United People of America, and good night.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Equal representation and one person, one vote are not "my philosophy of democracy". They are basic requirements for democracy, period. If you have a system where some people have 50x more representation than others, that system is not democratic.
You can scream some nonsensical all-caps justification for this unfairness, and I'm sure you could just as easily come up with some justification for feudalism or monarchy (i.e. it wasn't intended to represent the people, it was intended to represent the ruling class), but it doesn't make it any more democratic.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I think each person should have the same amount of representation in congress...
Objectively, it is already so. A resident of CA has two senators. A resident of WY has two senators. That being a precise and equal representation in the senate. No state resident has any more, nor any fewer senators than any other resident of any other state, regardless of population.
I.e., each person has the same amount of representation in the senate, regardless of how you rationalize it otherwise.... 
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's enormously unequal. "Wyoming" is not a person, and neither is "California". Your argument is equivalent to saying that the 1% aren't really any better off than the 99% because if you add up the total wealth of the 99%, it's greater than the total wealth of the 1%.
treestar
(82,383 posts)The state government is uninfluenced by outside states.
We're talking about the federal government.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)The political lines generally fall along state lines. An example I used down thread -- There's $50 billion for infrastructure. Congress has to decide how it is divided. What scheme do we use to ensure more populated regions don't take all the money for themselves while allowing less populated regions to fall to ruin?
SlimJimmy
(3,251 posts)to represent the issues for their state as a whole. They proportioned the House by population to give the people a say for each part of the state. A brilliant concept that should not be changed for obvious reasons.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Not the North American Commonwealth, as much as you want it to be.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)States joined the union, based on these criteria.
I would tend to think that many states would not appreciate having the rules on their degree representation in the federal government changed after they signed on.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The fact that the status quo is, in fact, the status quo doesn't make the status quo right.
beevul
(12,194 posts)If an entity signs onto a binding agreement - such as the union, based on certain criteria having to do with representation, and that criteria is changed after the fact, one of more parties who signed on to that agreement based on that criteria, would rightfully feel as if that was a breech of that agreement.
And they would be correct.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Viewed through the lense of not giving a damn about the position of some of the entities that signed on to the agreement in question - that is to say the union - I can see how you'd see it that way.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)This is just one of them. Times change, and the people who signed those agreements are all dead. There's no justification for denying equal representation for people who live in states like CA, NY and TX.
CTyankee
(68,173 posts)It seems to me that that is what DanTex is essentially pointing out. Otherwise, women would still be waiting for the vote and slaves would still be enslaved, just as those two groups were when the agreement to which you refer was made.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... and there is a process to change the agreement. Actually, two processes. One involves war.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Simply limit the ratio of representatives to senators to no more than 6:1.
After every census, if a state is found to get more than 12 representatives, it has until the next census to divide itself up equally into smaller states until each has 12 or less representatives. And the numbers must be as equal as possible, so the biggest new state can only have 1 more representative than the smallest new state.
Initially, it would add about 17 states to the union... 17 chances to have the most modern political theories put into state constitutions! Instant runoff voting, for example.
Then, as the states grew in population, we'd gradually add more states as older states split up.
There would still be a mechanism to keep bigger states from bullying smaller states, but it would keep the wild, 80:1 disparity that is California to Wyoming from happening.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Why does Wyoming deserve special protection from bullying, but not, say, Fresno CA or Staten Island NYC, which each have about the same number of people?
krispos42
(49,445 posts)For example.
It's about solutions needing a level of customization on one level or another, I guess. I suspect there are intricacies and history that goes along with this. Remember, states are not just people, they are the resources of the land and water that goes with it.
Because we go state-by-state, the ratio of people to elected representative is going to vary to some extent. Since it's not practical to recreate the Senate so it's also a representative body, I'm trying to just minimize the variation.
Minnesota for its state legislature uses a system where there are 67 number of senate districts, and each senate district is divided into halves. Each district has a senator that serves for 4 years, and each district half has a representative that serves for 2 years. Each senator represents about 60k people, which I think is entirely reasonable.
That might work for us, but we'd have to entirely do away with the concept of the states getting representation as equals and simply lump two adjoining congressional districts together to form a senate district. This would mean that, for example, North and South Dakota would only have 1 senator, Wyoming and Montana would have one, etc.
Texas would get 18.
California would get 26, Oregon 2, and one senator would have a district in each state.\
That's a hell of a change, but it might work out.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It might historically have had to do with geographical area or resources, but I don't think political representation should be based on either of those -- a person who lives in a dense city deserves just as much protection as a person who lives in a large swath of land rich with oil reserves.
I think that in principle getting rid of the idea of states being equal in terms of representation is a good one. It's never going to happen, of course, but it would be more fair if Wyoming had to team up with Montana and the Dakotas for senate representation.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)But at the same time, you can see, I think, how majorities can twist things to their own advantage. To suck up all of the highway funds, for example.
I think the idea is that it's easier for states to vote as a block on issues, so the senate would form a counter to that tendency.
I'm probably going to be lambasted for saying this, but I personally think we need a much larger Congress. We should have no more than 100,000 people per representative, and if we need to have 3,100 congressmen, then so be it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And our constitution does that. And I also agree that, flaws and all, it's better to keep it than to try to have a new constitutional convention right now.
But the way the senate and electoral college work (and even the house) has the effect of simply giving some groups more power while reducing the power of others, in more or less arbitrary ways. In some cases it might serve to protect minority groups from being bullied, but in other cases it can even further marginalize minority groups whose already small influence is reduced based on where they live geographically.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Two chambers to the Congress.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
Moses2SandyKoufax
(1,290 posts)that works out to 1 house rep per about 717,000 in California, and 1 house rep per 500,000 in Wyoming. Even in the lower chamber residents of Wyoming have more political power than residents of California
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)You seem to be unaware that your argument was both given and argued, and then ultimately rejected during the course of the Constitutional Conventions as your own questions were at the time, asked and answered.
The following two texts are quite informative as to why the assembly decided that two measures of representation would be the most effective in allowing in both allocating and rescinding power...
Decision in Philadelphia by Christopher Collier
The Bill of Rights: A History in Documents by John J. Patrick
Hope they help!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)the country were very different places are not infallible.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)... you don't like the decision. But it's what was agreed to. You want to renege.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Funny that the people defending the decision can't come up with a better argument than "that's just how it is".
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Looks like the alternatives are a Constitution Convention or a war.
dkf
(37,305 posts)But heck maybe we should elect a king that gets to decide everything. That is democratic right?
Just kidding of course.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)certainly reflect the overall vote much better than either the house or the senate currently does.
SlimJimmy
(3,251 posts)state itself and the State's interests. The House represents the people and that's why it's proportional. Government 101.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)... but for the rest of us it's a shitty idea.
Besides, when was the last time the house of representatives did anything that wasn't stupid?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Because Bernie Sanders, that's why.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)furious
(202 posts)but that's fundamentally not true, each state has 2 senators, which works out to be equal representation of both states.
I having a hard time understanding why you think that one state with more population should have a greater say in the senate?
Why do you think the smaller states should bow down to the larger states wishes?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There are over 50x as many people in CA than WY. But both states have 2 senators. That means that WY has 50x as many senators per capita than people in CA. A person in WY has 50x as much influence in that senate than a person in CA.
I have a hard time understanding why you think people in WY should have so much more power than people in CA.
furious
(202 posts)each state has 2 fed. senators, the govt was set up that way so that each state would have equal representation and also those with greater populations wouldn't steamroll over the smaller states, which is exactly what would happen if a system you seem to favor were put in place.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not saying that the entire state has more power, I'm saying that a person in WY has more power than a person in CA, because WY has 50 times as many senators per capita.
WY has the same population as Fresno, CA, but WY gets two whole senators, whereas Fresno has to share two senators with the whole rest of the CA. Why are people in WY given so much more power than people in Fresno? What do you have against Fresno?
I don't think some people should have more power than others simply because of where they live. That's undemocratic.
furious
(202 posts)as it would allow the more populous states to roll right over the less populous states.
Why would that be fair?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's very simple, really. In terms of national politics, whether you live in a big or small state shouldn't determine how much representation you have.
It was set up this way so that each STATE would have the same representation, thereby negating another state with more people from dictating to other less populated states.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The point is that the whole notion of "equal representation by state" is enormously undemocratic. Just because it was set up that way 200+ years ago doesn't mean it's fair or just.
furious
(202 posts)Unless I'm missing something here, the system we have now is much fairer than what you would seem to favor.
It prevents one state, who just happens to have a larger population, from telling smaller states what their policies should be.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There's no reason that states need equal representation. States don't have feelings, or opinions.
People need equal representation, not states.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)localities. This is why California has 53 House Members to Wyoming's 1. One. 53. Then in the Senate each gets 2.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)dump their industrial waste in the smaller State of their choice. We have States. If we did not then we'd not have Senators anyway, just a giant House of District Reps. And there are in fact interests that are mine as an individual and other interests that are mine as a citizen of my State or of my country.
If I was, and for most of my life I was, a citizen of a Mega State, my concerns would not be about representation in DC but in my own State House. That's where the Texans and Californians and NYers get shafted.
furious
(202 posts)That's Ok, spirited debate is good.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)furious
(202 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)You see the Federal govt as the sovereign entity, representing all the people of the country. You say a State is "just" a political entity, as if it was something made up for convenience of voting. That is false. The "United States" of America was not an agreement formed by all the people of the country. It was a union of the STATES. The SOVEREIGN STATES that agreed to form a union and set up the rules of that agreement. THE PEOPLE WERE NOT SOVEREIGN. It is NOT "The United People of America." I know that's the way you wanted it to be, but it wasn't.
The States are still sovereign, within the confines of the agreement of the Union. Many people cannot grasp that, including you. Violations of that agreement has and will cause wars.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)oldhippie
(3,249 posts)Are you willing to take up arms to ignore the agreement? I think there are a number of people who don't think it was wrong that will oppose you.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)No, I'm not going to take up arms. I'm just pointing out that the agreement made 200+ years ago is flawed and grossly undemocratic. And the fact that nobody seems to be able to come up with argument as to why it's right (other than "cause that's how it is" and "you wanna fight?"
proves my point.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts).... with me at least, because I think it was a good, democratic, decision. It was democratic for the sovereigns (the equal states) that made the agreement about the Senate. The matter of the democracy for another sub-party to the agreement (the people) was addressed by the House. I think it was a good system. Sorry.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The people who benefit from injustice are frequently hard to convince that said injustice exists. I'm pretty sure that feudal lords aren't interested in hearing about democracy any more than you are.
I'm actually just wondering whether at some point someone will make an argument that the undemocratic nature of the senate is actually a good thing, other than "that's how it is" and "what are you gonna do about it".
DonCoquixote
(13,957 posts)California from steamrolling the rest of the nation?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)CA is only about 10% of the population, and it is a very diverse state. A more pertinent question is what prevents the rest of the nation from steamrolling California.
The fact of the matter is that in a democracy, tyranny of the majority is always a threat. But the solution is not to choose some arbitrary "minorities" (e.g. people who live in Wyoming) and give them far more political power than everyone else. That actually puts other minorities (e.g. people who live in Staten Island) in an even more vulnerable position.
SlimJimmy
(3,251 posts)the number of representatives in each state is based on the population of that state. The two Senators from each state represent the interests of the state as a whole. Government 101.
seveneyes
(4,631 posts)Slagging the Constitution is a hobby with many non-Americans.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There is definitely a segment of the American population whose worship of the constitution borders on the religious, and for whom any criticism is viewed as blasphemy. This is most common among tea party conservatives, but there is some of this in progressive circles as well.
Why should the constitution be immune to criticism? It's just a document, after all. There are some good things about it and some bad things about it.
randome
(34,845 posts)We need a body of laws. But the Constitution is so 1700s.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
sarisataka
(22,670 posts)to justify the trampling of our 4th Amendment rights. It must be ok since those old white guys never could imagine all of the ways the government can snoop into our business. Some political leaders have considered it and believe it is the best course of action for our country...
I wish someone had smashed Bush the Second over the head with a Constitutional Law text book; it might have knocked some sense into him.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)"The founding fathers didn't live in a time with Internet, terrorists, (and so on) Therefore, giving up your rights is perfectly fine."
Bunnahabhain
(857 posts)First, whether a constitution is written or unwritten the practical impact is the same. Take the UK which has an unwritten constitution that has been in place since 1688 (the Glorious Revolution) but we could include the first written document upon which this unwritten constitution is based to be the Magna Carta. The fundamental rights of the people are embedded in the common law which actually predates this by centuries. This would happen in the US if the written constitution was suddenly done away with. The centuries of legal history would still be there. Also, speaking of legal history, the Constitution of today and how it has been interpreted and enforced, would barely be recognized by the Founding Fathers.
It's not like having things on a document has stopped the Constitution from being drastically changed since it was originally signed.
gopiscrap
(24,723 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)So, what's your plan for lowering the guns-per-capita rate, and what is the time frame?
And what other amendments and constitutional sections do you want to re-write?
And, more importantly, who will re-write them? Even more importantly, who will control what they are writing?
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)It keeps us from following the path of Europe, where they have bizarre legal systems that allow their parliaments to ban anything on a whim. France police thugs can legally throw burkha-wearing women into the back of an armored police van. They don't have freedom of speech, association (groups are outlawed), or expression.
Screw that, I'll keep the constitution and FF.
randome
(34,845 posts)That doesn't mean we need to preserve the Constitution as some sort of holy authority.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)There is no support to change it. We preserve it as the supreme law of the land because that is what it is supposed to be.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)With it's authority, time and time again laws restricting speech have been struck down. What legal, unbending framework do you suggest?
randome
(34,845 posts)I have no problem whatsoever with preserving the best parts of the Constitution but creating a new system of government at the same time.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)America fuck yeah!!!
http://m.
I would recommend actually reading into how those poor Europeans live. No, the legislatures do not pass things willy nilly, they do have supreme courts, and they do have freedom of association.
Granted, Italy is fun to watch for things like no confidence votes, as well as the British Parliament. Suffice to say, we would do well to get rid of gerrymandering and winner take all.
But yup, America fuck yeah
LuvNewcastle
(17,812 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)In the right mood it is actually fun
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Minaret bans in Switzerland, beauty pageant and burkha bans in France, bans on violence in games in Germany, racism charges in Britain, which is similar to French and German speech restrictions.
Has nothing to do with America F Yeah if you follow European law, there are serious problems in those systems. I love my constitution because I won't wake up tomorrow and find that something has been banned because a majority of people disagree with it.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)There are some very serious problems in ours, exhibit A the US Congress.
The cause of this, winner take all. The last time it was this dysfunctional we ended up in a nice hot civil war. I am not sure the country will survive that twice.
So let me return you to the USA, USA, USA!!!! We are seeing.
No they are not perfect, neither are we.
Something about the piece of dirt in somebody else's eye, while the log blocks your own vision comes to mind.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Straw man alert!
Don't blame the Founders for the right-wing lunacy that started with Reagan, that is entirely our own fault. Blaming the constitution for idiotic voting is a cop-out of our own responsibility to ensure competent leadership. We can't blame this on the Founders not selecting a parliamentary system.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)And serious dysfunction periodically. It was the best they could come up in 1789 studying Greece and Rome. It was not Reagan
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)It's a non-functional corrupt mess that makes ours look superb. Less awful but equally unresponsive is Japan's parliament. I can give you a list of parliaments as shitty as our congress. This isn't 1861.
Whatever form of democracy is chosen, its foundations are the people who vote for it. No matter what system we have, it can fall into ruin if people vote poorly.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)We are not, contrary to all the propaganda, exceptional
BeyondGeography
(41,090 posts)Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)While I will admit that there is an unhealthy aspect to the almost worship which some tend to view the founders, a respect for the law and an insistence that the government follow that law is not a part of it. Nor is it a source of shame that our constitution and government has stood this long. The author might as well suggest we begin demolishing old buildings.
Some people don't like guns and believe they should be outlawed. Right now, however, the right to own weapons is protected by the Constitution. The solution is not to trash or ignore the Constitution, but to change it-- as has happened over and over again throughout our history. Unfortunately, for those who want to ban weapons, there is nowhere near enough public support for that to happen. So we get silly articles like this, complaining that Democracy and the rule of law are failing simply because they dislike the results.
Uncle Joe
(65,096 posts)Considering how far along we are in regards to mega-corporate, oligarch control I wonder what kind of Constitution would pass in today's environment?
Demo_Chris
(6,234 posts)coldmountain
(802 posts)Uncle Joe
(65,096 posts)mouthpieces and decisions by the Supreme Court ie: Citizens United short, they can damage it beyond our imaginations.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Cuz you been wearin' that muhfucker OUT yo.
Seriously though... again no way to work the South into this? You're slippin'.
coldmountain
(802 posts)Turns out the War of Southern rebellion really was about slavery.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/09/04/abraham_lincoln_the_president_used_this_map_to_see_where_slavery_was_strongest.html?wpisrc=obnetwork
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Many of the principles in the Constitution are worthy, but they need to be clarified and brought up to modern standards of a populated society.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)The Second is here to stay, thankfully.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Especially when it's with a rifle.
I'm kind of used to seeing revolvers carried by old grizzled cowboys in the Mother Lode area, though I guess they can't go out that way anymore.
TheDeputy
(224 posts)Except for all the others.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)
backwoodsbob
(6,001 posts)the founding fathers also couldn't have imagined the internet so we to do away with the first.
AND they couldn't have imagined the terra terra terra situation so that forth has to go too
States rights?...oh hell no...not in todays interconnected world
So what rights will we have left if we trash the constitution?
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Yet we’ve also always had gun control. The Founding Fathers instituted gun laws so intrusive that, were they running for office today, the NRA would not endorse them. While they did not care to completely disarm the citizenry, the founding generation denied gun ownership to many people: not only slaves and free blacks, but law-abiding white men who refused to swear loyalty to the Revolution.
For those men who were allowed to own guns, the Founders had their own version of the “individual mandate” that has proved so controversial in President Obama’s health-care-reform law: they required the purchase of guns. A 1792 federal law mandated every eligible man to purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. Such men had to report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and, yes, registered on public rolls.
The myth of the Founding Fathers is used to justify what a modern group wants, and has nothing to do with what they actually did. I am not defending them.
I mean, this was a group that allowed the ownership of slaves and women were second class citizens who once married could not own property. I think they came up with a great document, but even Thomas Jefferson thought that every law and Constitution should be rewritten every 19 years.
Read more at http://www.omg-facts.com/History/Thomas-Jefferson-Believed-The-Constituti/56097#3Z7IJEhz0BGEuoEi.99
Jeneral2885
(1,354 posts)and its relevance with modern society
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)or the Star Spangled Banner being replaced with "I wish I were an Oscar Mayer Weiner" as our national anthem.
Not that objectively it wouldn't be a good idea - but there is just way too much romantic national mythology wrapped up in the American Constitution - across the political spectrum from the most radically right to the most civil-libertarian radical left. And as someone else mentioned - I can't see what national consensus exist to come up with what should be in a new one. No doubt there would be many who would want to strengthen the language on the right of private gun ownership and I'm sure many of the same folks would want to insure that Christian prayer in public schools is Constitutionally enshrined. A constitutional convention charged with writing a whole new constitution is likely to end with splitting the country apart.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)denied a majority in their time, but enjoyed by most today, weakens this thesis considerably. But as for things like the Senate and the electoral college, I get it.
Mellow Drama
(47 posts)One that leans toward human rights, not corporate or individual wealth rights. One that gives everyone healthcare, food, housing, education, and every necessity that should never be denied. The constitution should also define our monetary status, and ensure that nobody abuses the system by becoming too rich, and of course that everyone is entitled to a wage that allows them to live. In addition, the constitution should make it mandatory that energy doesn't pollute the planet, and of course environmentalism must be an integral part of the constitution.
I say trash the constitution, build it up in a more progressive, globally inclusive manner. Thanks for giving me an idea to use as my next editorial here on campus!
coldmountain 
me
coldmountain
(802 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)'Cause there certainly isn't the same reverence for the rest of the document as there is for the (truncated*) 2nd amendment.
*Whatever happened to the part about "a well-regulated militia"? And the obvious assumption that the militia was the army, unless one was needed for extended periods--and even then would not to be authorized for more than 2 years at a time?
That said, the Constitution was written with a broad brush and vague terms that would allow room to maneuver in changing conditions. If changes can't be accommodated then that's what the amendment process is for. And it should have been used long ago re the electoral college, public financing of elections, corporate personhood and any number of other things.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)That is the meaning during that time.
truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)The militia was the army. Now we have an army, why do we need the "militia?"
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sorry.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)It's called the Amendment. All it takes is a MAJORITY.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Actually, what I said was, ("hello???? hello? -taps microphone-...is this thing on?" the CONSTITUTION is not GOING away.
Yes, the Constitution contains a mechanism by which the Constitution can be changed thus allowing it to be modified as the times dictate, albeit with the bar set fairly high to do so, and as such offers an additional barrier to becoming irrelevant. Because we the people can change it.
Which is not the same thing as getting RID of it.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)The built in mechanism for change doesn't restrict change IN ANY WAY. Nowhere does it say ANY changes are out of bounds. It merely states the mechanism by which changes can be made.
Change the Constitution however you see fit. Twist it into whatever pretzel you wish.
Find a majority first.
Pretty simple, if you ask me.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)has been something of a pet peeve lately
Totally. That's how you change the Constitution, by amending it if you can get the votes.
What this OP is talking about, though, is scrapping it and coming up with something totally new, which sounds to me like a dorm room pipe dream and little more.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)..... (you might want to review the process). And the amendment process is not exactly a self-destruct mechanism, as it requires an outside initiated action. But I think I know what you are trying to say.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And it was meant to changeable - I think Jefferson commented on that.
The will to repeal the Second Amendment is what is needed - it is simply outdated (if interpreted to mean an individual right to keep and bear arms).
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)If you repealed the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms would go from being explicitly protected at the federal level to being implicitly protected by the unenumerated rights clause of the ninth amendment. It would also still be explicitly protected by state constitutions.
Why do people seem to think that the bill of rights "grants" rights? Has nobody read the preamble to the bill of rights?
The bill of rights is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people can' document.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And that's all we want to do with it.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The second amendment doesn't stop some infringement today (denying arms to convicted felons or those adjudicated "mentally defective" {not my words, the words of the law}, e.g.).
No repeal of an explicit protection will remove the individual right to keep and bear arms.
treestar
(82,383 posts)why rely on it to such extent?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Remove it, and the ninth becomes the protection (along with state constitutions.)
Do they not teach the enlightenment, or civics anymore?
I'd expect a philosophy major to be familiar with Locke, Rousseau, et al, but even grade school kids used to have to learn the first couple bits of the declaration of independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...
Rights predate the constitution, and not all rights are explicitly enumerated yet are protected.
e.g. - The right to travel. You won't find it in the constitution or the bill of rights, yet it exists and the government is charged with protecting it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Or we could have done just with that.
I think there would be argument over whether the 9th then covered that. It wouldn't just be accepted right off the bat.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Kentucky (1792): "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
Pennsylvania (1790): "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Delaware: "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State.."
Alabama (1819): "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.."
Washington: "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.."
You should read other cases such as US v Cruikshank ("This right is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." or Presser v Illinois ("the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms..."
It would take a first-year law student about 10 minutes to prove that the right is recognized, and therefore covered by the ninth.
Face it, you can't make a right go away.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)How many more infringements?
Zorra
(27,670 posts)bullshit on the internet.
The Founders suck, the founder of the Democratic party sucks, the Constitution sucks, unregulated capitalism, and unregulated spying on everyone is good and necessary, blah blah blah, and anyone who thinks differently is a radical libertarian leftist.
Yeh, nobody is perfect, and nothing is perfect, but 240 or whatever years after the Constitution became the law of the land, I'm here expressing my opinion without some wealthy king or noble throwing me in jail for it.
Some careful, considered revision of the Constitution would probably be a good thing. But under the present circumstances, who would be revising it?
If you didn't answer the 1%, you might be a conservative.
CTyankee
(68,173 posts)jail is fanciful. Didn't you hear the news? Those kings and nobles were replaced by other PTB who keep you down just as much as the royals did 240 years ago...meet the new boss...
CTyankee
(68,173 posts)in 1918 (they had been voting in local elections earlier).
JEFF9K
(1,935 posts)... they won't change their stance until they are personally affected.
