Mayne I'm trying to help this brother...and you keep calling him a doody head.
Stop that shit.
Joe Biden is now POTUS
- Thread starter Spectrum
- Start date
Stop that shit.
Peep this bro. We're not making this up. Its well known.
11 ways to fix America’s fundamentally broken democracy
The United States has a president who received nearly 3 million fewer votes than his Democratic opponent. Currently, over half the country lives in just nine states, which means that less than half of the population controls 82 percent of the Senate. It also means that Republicans hold a majority in the Senate despite the fact that Democratic senators represent more than half of the American people.
11 ways to fix America’s fundamentally broken democracy
A plan for the democratic revolution America needs.
www.vox.com
In 1995, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan declared, “Sometime in the next century the United States is going to have to address the question of apportionment in the Senate.” Perhaps that time has come. Today the voting power of a citizen in Wyoming, the smallest state in terms of population, is about 67 times that of a citizen in the largest state of California, and the disparities among the states are only increasing. The situation is untenable.
The Path to Give California 12 Senators, and Vermont Just One
Maybe the two-senators-per-state rule isn’t as permanent as it seems.
The first step is denial
I do. But I don't think we need to change it Bro. We need to vote more. Get they asses outta there. We can agree, we ain't changing shit unless we get the majority in the Senate. We falling off.
Mayne I'm trying to help this brother...and you keep calling him a doody head.
Stop that shit.
Let me stop
Obama is the reason why I am sad for term limits but Trump is the reason why I am happy we got term limits.
Gerrymandering negates our votes, but we're not talking about the house.I do. But I don't think we need to change it Bro. We need to vote more. Get they asses outta there. We can agree, we ain't changing shit unless we get the majority in the Senate. We falling off.
The Senate is broken and no amount of voting is going to change its structure.
The articles I posted explain it.
This is not opinions. This is fact.
None of that shit is proves anything in this case.
You are not comprehending the problem being discussed.
Voting practices do not have an effect on the fundamental deficiencies of the Senate in its current form.
You need to read the articles I posted.
You'll understand if you do.
Don't sleep on those food banks. I help make calls to different families reminding them when the next ones are coming up.
Huge refrigerated trucks with really good dairy, fruit, canned and boxed goods for anybody who wants it.
Can't hurt for poor and/or middle class folks to stack up.
He'll be too busy being some white supremacist's jailhouse bitch to run for president.
Damn, I just reread the last few pages and I see where this took a left turn at.
At that point, it was clear that two different understandings were happening.
Fam could have just chalked that up as a sincere misunderstanding. And it would have been alright.
But Pops flew in with the insults and that's all she wrote.
At that point, it was clear that two different understandings were happening.
Fam could have just chalked that up as a sincere misunderstanding. And it would have been alright.
But Pops flew in with the insults and that's all she wrote.
It's called the Senate Reform Act Bro. It's not anything new. I don't think you can comprehending the effects of it. None of this is fact Bro. It's all opinion and there many. I am not the only one either.
1
While Mr. Orts’s idea of majority rule sounds wonderful, there is a big pitfall in it. For four years I was mayor of a small rural community in California, where legislature is by majority rule. There was never any concern in the legislature about the effect of legislation on the small and rural areas of the state. It was all about what the big cities wanted; small and rural areas were negated or ignored and thus problems never addressed.
Should Mr. Orts’s idea be adopted, there would be the same result. New York, New England, and the West Coast would be making decisions for all of the country, and vast areas of the United States would be ignored. This is not in the best interests of all of the United States, just the big, populous states, and this is not what the Founders of our nation wanted.
2
I respectfully disagree with attempts to change the Senate so that each state has equal voting rights. The constitutional designers had an elegant plan when they created the Senate and the House. The House would give precedence to each state’s size, thus giving the “majority” a voice, and the Senate would be a counterbalancing force giving equal weight to each state and thus giving the “minority” a voice. The two chambers would then have to negotiate in order to craft compromise legislation that took account of the needs of both sides. This apportionment was not about depriving people of their voting rights or favoring small states over big states—the House clearly was meant to address both of those concerns. If people really want to change the Senate to reflect the size of states, then just abolish the Senate.
3
Dr. Orts has proposed an interesting path to solving the problems of representation in the U.S. Senate. However, he almost entirely fails to defend one of the underlying assumptions of the piece: that reforming the Senate is better and more elegant than simply abolishing the Senate.
4
The Senate was not designed to be representative of the people but of the states, and as such has served us well. Ideally each state sends two of its most esteemed people to the august body and they, with the other esteemed individuals, seek what is best for our nation. However, what has gotten out of whack is the House of Representatives. By limiting its size to 435 it has stolen the voices of millions. Instead I would propose that representatives be apportioned based on the number of people living in the least populous state for a total of 531 representatives, all representing a comparable number of people equally.
5
First, it is hard to reconcile Professor Orts’s interpretation of the two-senators rule with any of the established methods of legal interpretation: wording, context, history, and purpose. As regards purpose, the most malleable method of interpretation: It would appear to me that the purpose of the two-senators rule was and is to preserve the sovereignty of the states forming the United States of America, not to preserve the dominance of any population group. The Founders clearly envisaged the Senate as an institution where the states are represented as equals (whereas the people are represented in the House of Representatives). One may dispute the wisdom of this choice, and of course other choices (such as the system proposed by Professor Orts) are conceivable. But to argue that this was not the choice of the Founders or that the principle of equality of states as such has somehow become moot seems far-fetched at best.
That brings me to my second issue with Professor Orts’s argument: that constitutional amendments protecting voting rights of citizens in the states could be construed as interfering with the voting rights of the states. That argument is unconvincing because it ignores the concept of state sovereignty and consequently confuses states and citizens as political actors.
My third issue is with the suggestion that the Constitution could be changed by simple federal law. This proposal is at odds with the basic legal principle that norms of a lower hierarchical order must be consistent with norms of a higher order. If it were otherwise, every town in America would be legally in its rights to reintroduce slavery by municipal ordinance (hint: They are not).
Without claiming to be an expert in U.S. constitutional law, it would appear to me that the only way to get rid of the two-senators rule legally would therefore be the path laid down in the U.S. Constitution: to gather the consent of each and every state for such a reform. Of course, there is also the alternative alluded to by Professor Orts: to hope for a majority of Supreme Court judges who are willing to close their eyes and think of England when the Senate Reform Act lands on their desk. But it doesn’t strike me as particularly convincing if the legal argument in support of the constitutionality of a legislative proposal is closed by the consideration that finding judges willing to ignore the Constitution would really help in passing the proposal.
I keep telling people Trump is going to jail if we don’t go to jail he is going to be in very deep legal trouble this is why he’s Trippin right now.
That nigga deleting posts
Remember he got 550k house 2 degrees and 3 cars
Remember he got 550k house 2 degrees and 3 cars
Damn, I just reread the last few pages and I see where this took a left turn at.
At that point, it was clear that two different understandings were happening.
Fam could have just chalked that up as a sincere misunderstanding. And it would have been alright.
But Pops flew in with the insults and that's all she wrote.
Yeah, I see too. They see the Senators as representatives of the population of the State. But they're are not suppose to be. They're representatives of the state. Sent to protect the federal government from the influence of the popular vote. They think the shit is broken. But they are not seeing the entire play in my eyes. The three levels balance each other out. They like what you talking about? We are not talking about the House, VP, or President. I'm like what?
My nigga Tito was killin yaw niggas
I ain't fronting nigga. One degree. Fuck you Shaddy. Non voting ass. Quit liking all my comments. You wanna see nigga beefing?
Now I gotta put you on ignore. You fucking with the Coon.
Congress has two parts Bro. The House and Senate. Laws must pass both to pass. The more people, more Representatives in the House you get. You get to push shit through there. But Senators are two per State. The larger states have more power in the house. To check that power the Senate has two per state. It seems clear to me but I guess some just won't see the logic in the way it works. Look at the map. NY, Cali, Texas, and Florida would run the country. How does that help us?
According to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years.” The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their ties with the national government. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be freed from pressures of public opinion and therefore better able to concentrate on legislative business and serve the needs of each state. In essence, senators would serve as “states’ ambassadors” to the federal government.
Everything you typed is correct, but they aren't arguing HOW it works or the mechanics of how representation is determined. They are saying they don't believe this should continue to be the case because the population explosion is not something that could have been foreseen by the founders and the red states are holding the country back. They are advocating for CHANGING how the current system works. Y'all having two different conversations right now.
My niggu Donwuan killin yall niggas too
y’all always be saying having these judges on the court leads to this then leads to that
Famo saying the same shit
y’all be wanting niggas to only see one way
shit crazy
y’all always be saying having these judges on the court leads to this then leads to that
Famo saying the same shit
y’all be wanting niggas to only see one way
shit crazy
I voted twice (one in mail, one in person)
some shit yaw niggas was sked to do
and this is posts this aint beef nobody has scratches on them
Famo
relax I’m a lil dyslexic bro I thought the 2 was over there
And I like everything I like nigga
Niggas be wanting you to be they lil bro or some shit
shit crazy
shit crazy
I think they are missing the big picture. The Senate has it's purpose. It should not be influence by the popular vote. We cannot all agree on everything. Like Obama said, some of his decisions will not be popular. If the country needs protecting Congress must act. The masses won't ever see the need to go to war. They will not understand what's at stake. This is the balance. It's just how I see it. Leaders lead. It's my ass if something happens. I am not waiting on a popular vote. Most won't understand that.
I can't change my ideology because of party bullshit.
Last edited:
I ain't got no problem with you Bro. You keep it real even if no one agrees. I respect that even though you be wrong as hell. I'm just fucking with you.
Yeah, I see too. They see the Senators as representatives of the population of the State. But they're are not suppose to be. They're representatives of the state. Sent to protect the federal government from the influence of the popular vote. They think the shit is broken. But they are not seeing the entire play in my eyes. The three levels balance each other out. They like what you talking about? We are not talking about the House, VP, or President. I'm like what?
@donwuan my point was that y’all wasn’t talking about the same thing, as Camille pointed out.
Nothing more.
@Camille @4 Dimensional
They believe that having two senators per state gives small states too much power. They think Cali and NY, for example, should have more representation in the Senate because they represent more people. The Republican's have too much power for the small amount of people they represent. They can block bills that the masses would like to be passed. The population has exploded and big states have a lot more people and their representation is not equal with the current state of the Senate. I think I get it. Am I right?
Yes.
Similar threads
