Lindsey Graham Says He Backs Trump in ‘Any Effort to Move Forward’ on RBG Vacancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thbolt said:
Nope, I think that the Senate is not representative of the people. Maybe we should have California has 200 Senators for Wyoming’s 2.
Click to expand...
You have the house confused with the senate.
They are two different offices and are for two different things.
As stated, the senate represents the state itself.
You are correct that the senate does not represent the people…they represent the state.
The senate should not represent the people…that is what the house is for.
Thbolt said:
States are nothing. I’m only interested in people.
Click to expand...
I live in a state. Believe me, the state is very important to people.
It is necessary for our system of checks and balances to function.
Do you want two houses?
What would that serve that the one does not already do?
Thbolt said:
Then the House should confirm treaties and judicial appointments.
Click to expand...
No. Since the states themselves are beholden to these, it is the pervue of the senate.
It would be wrong for new York to be able to have an undue influence over laws in alabama.
But that is exactly what would be set up in the system you propose.
 
Thbolt said:
A difference without a distinction.
Click to expand...
There is a very big difference.
Our founding fathers saw it clearly, as do I.

In the house, the congressmen strives to execute the will of his constituency.
In the senate, the senator strives for what is best for his state. Not necessarily the will of the people in that state.
Thbolt said:
But it’s okay for Alabama to have undue influence over laws in New York. Got it.
Click to expand...
Again, cite a specific example.
 
Last edited:
Thbolt said:
Every time the Senate votes down something that the House approves.
Click to expand...
Ok…I can proceed without examples.

You wish to abolish the senate. Because it is the only place where less populous states can say “no” and it go through.

But if these less populous states do not have this ability, then they are, in fact, subject to the will of the more populous states.

You were worried about the minority having a say…well now they don’t.
You are, in essence, arguing for a tyranny of the majority. Where less populous states have no say in affairs that affect them greatly.

I prefer what the founding fathers put forth.

Parliament may work in Britain, but they are also much smaller and less populated than the US.
It would not work here.
 
Thbolt said:
It made sense when there were 13 distinct states that really had very little in common. It really hasn’t been that way since the Civil War.
Click to expand...
New York still has little in common with Alabama.
And the same can be said for most other states.
Particularly when one compares small populations to the larger states.
 
Interesting.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Origins_Development.htm

To balance power between the large and small states, the Constitution’s framers agreed that states would be represented equally in the Senate and in proportion to their populations in the House. Further preserving the authority of individual states, they provided that state legislatures would elect senators. To guarantee senators’ independence from short-term political pressures, the framers designed a six-year Senate term, three times as long as that of popularly elected members of the House of Representatives. Madison reasoned that longer terms would provide stability. “If it not be a firm body,” he concluded, “the other branch being more numerous, and coming immediately from the people, will overwhelm it.” Responding to fears that a six-year Senate term would produce an unreachable aristocracy in the Senate, the framers specified that one-third of the members’ terms would expire every two years, leaving two-thirds of the members in office. This combined the principles of continuity and rotation in office.
 
I am still waiting for specific examples.
I don’t think you have any.

There is no point in continuing until you can produce specifics.
 
Ok, I’ve answered your question (a couple of times). You seem to disagree. Why don’t you list some examples where polygamy resulted in something positive?
 
MikeInVA said:
Ok, I’ve answered your question (a couple of times). You seem to disagree. Why don’t you list some examples where polygamy resulted in something positive?
Click to expand...
Does it have to result in something positive? No not at all.

What example did he give for Abraham? Abraham had 3 wives. Abraham died of natural causes. Nothing bad happened to Abraham.
 
We can look at David, yes something bad happened to him. He got killed by his second wife’s son.
Yet there is also good thing, his lineage to Jesus gets reported thru a later wife via Solomon.

Mat 1:6 And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;

And likewise, Yet there is another good thing, his lineage to Jesus gets reported thru a later wife via Nathan.

Luk_3:31 Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
 
Thbolt said:
Then I guess the Senate didn’t do their job in 2016.
Click to expand...
sure they did, just not the way you wanted.

Obama picked his candidate and the senate didn’t agree with his pick, so he wasn’t put on the court.
Thbolt said:
I don’t think the US system is going to last much longer if minority rule continues.
Click to expand...
the senate isn’t minority-ruled, it is the equal-rule of the individual states.
Thbolt said:
upants asked if I would get rid of the Senate, and honestly, I would. It is not representative.
Click to expand...
would you also abolish the individual states? do away with state government?
Thbolt said:
Their people will have equal say in the policies of the whole United States and they can regulate their states to their own rules as much as they want.
Click to expand...
who would represent the states in the federal government? when the feds created unfunded mandates for the states, who will defend the states’ rights
Thbolt said:
No, every 27 million Californians are represented by one Senator while every 270,000 Wyomingians (or whatever they are called) are represented by one Senator. That means, you Wyomingian has 100 times the representation as a Californian.
Click to expand...
there are 50 equal states, each with 2 senators.
Thbolt said:
Nope, I think that the Senate is not representative of the people. Maybe we should have California has 200 Senators for Wyoming’s 2.
Click to expand...
a duplicate of the house? what sense does this make?
Thbolt said:
Kind of like how less populous states take advantage of more populous states?
Click to expand...
senators aren’t based on population.
Thbolt said:
Nope, since you seem to think that New York would dictate Alabama around, you tell me how that would happen.
Click to expand...
easy, your extra NY reps in the senate would run the show and force unfunded mandates on states like AL that can’t afford it.
 
Thbolt said:
So, instead Alabama gets to run the show and force politics on New York. Got it.
Click to expand...
no, AL doesn’t force NY to do anything, by themselves they can’t do anything to the other. it takes a majority
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top