Captain.Heroin
Bluelight Crew
It is what it is because it is all it ever can be and ever will be.
Should Congress be restructured?
- Thread starter mal3volent
- Start date
mal3volent
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 40,091
I don't get why you guys keep dodging my point
Ali, you admit the Senate by itself would be unfair. Well, no bill becomes law without passing through the Senate. So essentially it IS "only" the Senate. The House full of representatives of the People can send legislation the vast majority of people support, then it goes to the Senate and dies. Because now, that same legislation is facing a group of people that was disproportionately elected by a tiny minority of voters.
If the votes of four Senators representing 60 million people (NY and CA) can be cancelled out by four senators representing 2 million people (MT and RI)
AND
No legislation passed by the House becomes law without first being voted on in the Senate
How is that "a fair attempt at balance" ? I'm dying to know.
And cap, it is that way "because it is" is not a very good argument for why it is or isn't fair.
Captain.Heroin
Bluelight Crew
mal read The Federalist No. 10
I'm pretty sure this is the on ethat enumerates the beauty of the house and senate.
I'll elaboraet more when Im' more sober.
I'm pretty sure this is the on ethat enumerates the beauty of the house and senate.
I'll elaboraet more when Im' more sober.
a bill can't become law without passing through the house either. in one, the bigger states have a bigger voice. in the other, all states have the same voice.
is it perfect? no. is it unfair? i don't think it's any less fair than any other (practical) system.
you seem a little annoyed that i don't just agree with you. i just have a different perspective...
alasdair
mal3volent
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 40,091
If you ever decide to address the multiple points I've made let me know.
i believe i have. i'll respectfully agree to disagree.
alasdair
alasdair
mal3volent
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 40,091
The bold parts indicate the parts of my post you didn't respond to.
Also this
cduggles
Bluelight Crew
This thread was created from a series of posts copied or moved from elsewhere.
Captain.Heroin
Bluelight Crew
My 2 cents: People like Moscow Mitch should be imprisoned for life. There's tons of good Senators who are speaking out regarding Trump from both sides of the aisle. People like Ted Cruz should be deported.
The senate could use some work. Some suggest TERM LIMITS (I disagree), or the AOC/Cruz conspiracy to reduce work opportunities for politicians (I also disagree). I think the voters should hold their representatives more accountable.
Captain.Heroin
Bluelight Crew
Yeah they should go door to door and confiscate all the psychopaths.
JessFR
Bluelight Crew
Why do I have the feeling if the senate were in democrat control and the house republican, I'd be seeing the opposite arguments?
Personally, I have no interest in seeing the passing of laws made easier.
A unicameral system means whoever has the majority of that chamber has noone to keep them in check. I don't support that.
Personally, I have no interest in seeing the passing of laws made easier.
A unicameral system means whoever has the majority of that chamber has noone to keep them in check. I don't support that.
JGrimez
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2018
- Messages
- 5,495
Just the criminal ones. And they must pass a psychopathic evaluation to be allowed to run for Congress
mal3volent
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 40,091
So, you're calling me a partisan and suggesting I'm being dishonest about the reasoning behind my argument? That's pretty unnecessary, don't you think? Why don't we stick to the argument itself and not start questioning each other's motives?
Could you please explain this a little more? The whole reason Congress exists is to pass laws. Why would we pay 535 people $174,000 a year to literally do nothing?
No, that's just wrong. That's what the Judicial and Executive branches are for. Laws come out of Congress and they can be challenged in court or vetoed by the President. No laws coming through Congress doesn't show balance it shows dysfunction.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
Jess didn't call you dishonest or partisan. And while some might interpret that from your words, I don't see it in your words either - you appear to have significant issue with the existence of the senate, regardless of who is in control of which part of gov't. So let's drop the sense of a personal attack, as none was intended. Let's focus in on your points, and the answers others have provided to date.
I don't get why you guys keep dodging my point
Ali, you admit the Senate by itself would be unfair. Well, no bill becomes law without passing through the Senate. So essentially it IS "only" the Senate. The House full of representatives of the People can send legislation the vast majority of people support, then it goes to the Senate and dies. Because now, that same legislation is facing a group of people that was disproportionately elected by a tiny minority of voters.
If the votes of four Senators representing 60 million people (NY and CA) can be cancelled out by four senators representing 2 million people (MT and RI)
AND
No legislation passed by the House becomes law without first being voted on in the Senate
How is that "a fair attempt at balance" ? I'm dying to know.
Nobody has dodged your point - we're answering it, you refuse to see the answers as you are hung up on the existence of the Senate as being unfair in your mind. We've pointed out you should read the Federalist Papers, specifically Federalist 10 which addresses your specific question:
No. 10 addresses the question of how to reconcile citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or inimical to the interests of the community as a whole. Madison saw factions as inevitable due to the nature of man—that is, as long as men hold differing opinions, have differing amounts of wealth and own differing amount of property, they will continue to form alliances with people who are most similar to them and they will sometimes work against the public interest and infringe upon the rights of others. He thus questions how to guard against those dangers.[citation needed]
Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9 and is titled "The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection". The whole series is cited by scholars and jurists as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution. Historians such as Charles A. Beard argue that No. 10 shows an explicit rejection by the Founding Fathers of the principles of direct democracy and factionalism, and argue that Madison suggests that a representative republic is more effective against partisanship and factionalism.[1][2]
Madison saw the Constitution as forming a "happy combination" of a republic and a democracy, with "the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures" resulting in a decentralized governmental structure. In his view this would make it "more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried".
Please, take the time to read and understand WHY the legislative branch was created with both a House of Representatives and a Senate before asking if it is fair and applicable today.
You keep repeating and rephrasing your point that in your opinion it is NOT fair that the Senate can kill any law proposed by the House. Note - you say this regardless of which party is in power, and I take that to mean if 90% of the population was Torry or Whig or whatever, you are fine with that as they represent the majority of the population and therefore represent the voice of the people. We got your point.
You argue that arbitrary lines on a map (to define a state) shouldn't mean that all those states get an equal voice anywhere as the voice of the people must be heard and (in your view) should be THE voice. Recall that at the time, there were 13 colonies, each operating largely independently and autonomously, though the joined together to break free from British rule. Yes, most of the citizens in these states were aligned with Independence from Britain, but they were loyal to their state over any sense of a nation. Even in the civil war, you would still find state loyalty over national (even if you considered the North and South two somewhat opposing nations on the continent). The rules were established to ensure the states (not just the masses, but the states that represented each group of the population) would agree to work together for a collective 'national' benefit. To do so, they needed to ensure a few checks and balances.
They made the three branches, so to separate powers and give each a responsibility that must work with the other two. Legislative makes the laws, Executive acts on the laws, and Judicial interprets the laws in their application. Looking at Congress, if it were run by states with equal voice only (Senate) then there is no accommodation for a state being large enough to hold the most population and be appropriately heard. Such a large group within the nation SHOULD be heard, and be able to enact laws that benefit the majority of the nations population (largest pop. states). The flipside is a Congress where only the population has a voice (House of Reps) means that smaller states wouldn't be able to protect themselves from laws being enacted that were detrimental to them, and they would have no means of getting laws enacted that benefit them. Their voice becomes too small.
It appears your view is the states be damned, follow the voice of the masses. At the time the gov't was created, it needed to protect the voices of the states as well, so they planned to accommodate both by having the House of Representatives (voice of the people) and the Senate (voice of the states). And, by forcing these two to agree on a law that is good for the nation, rather than just certain aligned states or just for states with the largest population. It was derived in an effort for fairness, and has succeeded for nigh 200y.
Lately, it's gotten bogged down by partisanship within both the House and the Senate (and the Exec Branch...and to a degree with the Judicial Branch). The fault for this lack of productivity is not the system, but the participants who refuse to work for the good of the people, and prefer to work for the good of their party, or their personal gains at times, but NOT for the good of the country. It breaks down when people fight to say 'NO' rather than working together to find a solution that works for all.
By your own view, whomever has the might (largest population) has the right. Is that fair? Perhaps to those populations, but not to all Americans.
You also return time and again to the Senate controlling decisions - do you not see they are equal with the House? Both parts of Congress propose laws, and require agreement from the other in order to get them passed. THIS is fair - population has a voice, states have a voice, and all must agree in order to enact a law. The example of RI killing a law proposed by CA as being unfair is countered by a RI law proposal being killed in the House by CA. It works both ways.
Keep in mind, also, that the original intent was for the States to retain most decision making as it applied to their population. And that the Federal gov't would only step in with laws that effected the nation. This allows states, and their population therein, to govern themselves as they see fit. You don't want WY passing a law that tourism and fishing are taxed at 300% because that doesn't hurt them a bit and would kill CA & FL = not fair. I ask that you do not lose sight of the role, and authority, of states to address their own needs; and get it muddied with the Federal gov't's role to address national needs.
Last edited:
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
There is a mechanism by which the votes of politicians are tracked and made available to their constituents. I think most of the populace doesn't bother, but it's there. The majority of politicians aren't held accountable unless they face a competitor when going for re-election, then those votes are brought out front.
Personally, I'd love to see term limits.
Same - unless there is some reason for security, ALL of it should be (and I believe it is) public to ensure whom you elected is doing what you voted them into office for.
mal3volent
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 40,091
TLB, I'm afraid your history lesson doesn't address my fundamental argument at all. I was pretty explicit from the beginning that I wasn't interested in the constitutional argument for why the system is how it is. Obviously there is a pretty well documented rationale for that.
My question is... is it fair? Is it fair in the modern world we live in? Most of the conversation has been between Ali and I. Even he will not say that it is fair. He says it's a "fair attempt" at balance. A "fair attempt"...what does that imply? That it was implemented with good intentions and sound theory. It doesn't mean that it turned out to be fair in practice, or that even if it was fair for a while that it remains so over 200 years later.
I realize these posts were off topic and needed to be moved, but I didn't necessarily intend on it being it's own thread. I would have made it much more coherent and thought out if I had. It was an off the cuff conversation. In my view, a theoretical one where we were debating whether or not our Congress as it is structured now accurately and fairly represents the will of the people.
I think my repeated examples of 40 million voters = 1 million voters is a great illustration. Yeah it's the most extreme comparison I could come up with, but that's the best way to highlight the absurdity.
My question is... is it fair? Is it fair in the modern world we live in? Most of the conversation has been between Ali and I. Even he will not say that it is fair. He says it's a "fair attempt" at balance. A "fair attempt"...what does that imply? That it was implemented with good intentions and sound theory. It doesn't mean that it turned out to be fair in practice, or that even if it was fair for a while that it remains so over 200 years later.
I realize these posts were off topic and needed to be moved, but I didn't necessarily intend on it being it's own thread. I would have made it much more coherent and thought out if I had. It was an off the cuff conversation. In my view, a theoretical one where we were debating whether or not our Congress as it is structured now accurately and fairly represents the will of the people.
I think my repeated examples of 40 million voters = 1 million voters is a great illustration. Yeah it's the most extreme comparison I could come up with, but that's the best way to highlight the absurdity.
Last edited:
mal3volent
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2011
- Messages
- 40,091
Well not directly. That would be a violation of the rules wouldn't it?
I'm the only one making the argument so I fail to see what else the implication of her words could be. If I'm wrong I will gladly apologize. I'm not triggered but I'm not going to let it slide, either.
You "liked" the comment so maybe you are the guy to explain it to me.
TheLoveBandit
Retired Never Was, Coulda been wannabe
Let's start with the end
Do you agree or disagree that with your House-only solution, she is correct that whomever owns the House are the only ones that create the laws? I think we all agree the Exec and Jud branches are there for the checks they have today, but for the Leg it becomes what you prefer....which is susceptible to, perhaps intended to be, majority rules PERIOD? It takes away any sense of state power or representation, and solely has 'the voice of the people' to guide making rules, correct?
Is there any problem with that? I ask a general question here, not trying to pull something from Mal or Jess or anyone in particular, but what would be the problem, if any, with a unicameral congress? In my mind, it lends itself to a whipsaw of legislation as different parties take office. A left leaning House-only enacts laws to confiscate guns, a right leaning house replaces it after a few years and rolls the laws back, rinse and repeat. And along the way, we're burning tax money and creating criminal records for folks for something that gets overturned after the next election - not a healthy way for a nation to operate.
This potentially exists today, if one party can gain majority in both House and Senate, but it's not that common. And when it does happen, you see legislation move much quicker...and is often contested heartily once that party loses power in one or both offices.
The first line, I don't think she aimed at you, Mal, but as I read it I very much see how you can take it that way. Perhaps I'm wrong on speaking for her, and should step back to let her answer for herself. She didn't say 'opposite arguments from you', and I read it as 'opposite arguments by the Left if the Dems held the Senate and not the House'...but I also take your comments pretty plainly as NOT being pro-Dem but more of questioning why a majority voice isn't THE voice (regardless of party). I take things differently than most, so I could be interpreting her as wrong as I am possibly interpreting you.
The line about seeing laws passed is her preference, which she is allowed. It is an interesting position to take, but she's free to do so. Personally, I can see some rolled back rather than more implemented. But that's my view when I see laws in place that no longer make sense, or never have.