What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Scary Quiz - Do you have what it takes to attract women? view!
doubleyourdating.com - Think you know a thing or two about meeting women? Take this quiz and find out...
289 Comments
- FlaG8r, on 02/22/2009, -5/+115Some people here are pretty confused. The 17th Amendment isn't why all states have the same number of Senators. That was the work of the original framers.
Section 3 of the Constitution starts with these words:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State"
Try reading up on the Connecticut Compromise. The 17th Amendment just changed how those 2 Senators were elected. - Reddog_x2000, on 02/22/2009, -8/+89Democracy is, at it's worst, 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. The senate, as originally constructed, was intended as a brake on Democracy. It was put in place so that the following wouldn't happen here:
"A democracy will continue to exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury." "From that moment, the voters always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship." The 200 average years of democracies normally takes the following route to its own self destruction. - mgraham80, on 02/22/2009, -53/+127The Founders also had slaves count as 3/5 of a person. The point is, the Constitution was envisioned as evolving with the country, not holding it back. I think the weight of history has been pushing toward more democracy, not less, for a reason. Democracy is better than the alternatives.
- gettophilosophr, on 02/22/2009, -3/+61Actually, even a cursory read of American founding political philosophy shows a government founded on the understanding that a pure democracy does not work and would destroy itself.
America was not founded as a democracy. Now, you're completely free to argue that more democracy is better, but it's simply untrue to say a democracy is better than the alternatives. Federal republics FTW. ;-D - GTQuicksilver, on 02/22/2009, -6/+53 Ever heard of tyranny of the majority? There are very good reasons for a bicameral legislature, including making sure that the minority's opinions (in reference to state population at least) still have some amount of clout in regards to national policy. Making everything unicameral and directly proportional to state population essentially gives states like California, New York, and Texas a supreme majority over the rest of the United States. Great if you happen to live in those areas - Not so much if you don't.
- govsucks, on 02/22/2009, -13/+54"The point is, the Constitution was envisioned as evolving with the country, not holding it back."
In that case, why even have the constitution, just subject the minority to the will of the majority all the time because democracy (as the gays in california recently found out) is always right. - badenglishihave, on 02/22/2009, -6/+44How is it anti-democratic to have two senators per state? Senators represent a state, not the people of the state. That's what the house of representatives is for. For example, if California had 50 senators and all of the less populous states had 2 or 3, the federal government would be pushed around by the will of one or two states (Cali, Texas, and Florida come to mind.)
And regardless, the 17th amendment doesn't say how many senators are elected for each state. That's in the Constitution, not the Bill of Rights. - mfc5200, on 02/22/2009, -1/+34I say we should repeal the 17th amendment on the basis that it essentially negates the point of having independent States. The people should take their immediate desires and interests to their respective States, not to the Federal Government. The State Legislators should then take State interests to the national level.
This way, power gets diffused and the influence of the Federal Government gets attenuated, as it was intended to be. The Federal Government was and should be meant to focus on national issues and only national issues (such as defense).
Case in point: The idea that marijuana (not that I even smoke it) is somehow banned "nationally" is a disgrace, when it clearly is not and should not be considered a national issue.
By putting so much power in Washington, it is inevitable that it will overstep its bounds. And I believe that it is no coincidence that the Federal Government began to seriously do so not that long after the implementation of the XVII amendment. After all, after the implementation of the XVII amendment, the States have had no say with regard to Federal policies. How can they defend themselves against abusive Federal policies?
----
p.s To TheEngineer20; The reason we have a Senate (two Senators per State) and a House (proportional) was so that the rights of the minority states would be protected. For example, why would Wyoming wish to be part of a country where they had absolutely no say in anything that happened? Having both the Senate and the House was the compromise agreed upon back in the day in order to alleviate this problem. - inactive, on 02/22/2009, -2/+34It was actually ANTI-SLAVERY ABOLITIONISTS that supported the idea of counting each slave as only 3/5 of a person for the census to apportion the House of Representatives. This was done in the hope to reduce the power and representation of the slave states in the House of Representatives. Pro-slavery supporters wanted each slave to be counted as one whole person to expand their power in the House of Representatives.
- TheEngineer2008, on 02/22/2009, -70/+101It's definitely time to repeal the 17th Amendment. It's was a bad idea then and it's worse now.
The framers of the Constitution provided for one house to be directly elected in proportion to population and another to be appointed by state legislators. In this way, states had a direct voice in one house of Congress. With direct election, this is gone. What remains is the anti-democratic two senators per state allocation that leaves Calif. with the same representation as Alaska or Wyoming. IMO either repeal the 17th Amendment or abolish the Senate in favor of a unicameral legislative body. - cvlad, on 02/22/2009, -0/+29The Senate was established to provide all states with equal representation to prevent an oppressive majority situation. It's laughable that you consider this "anti-democratic," as just because a group is a majority does not make them right. Populism can be a frighteningly dangerous road to go down.
The whole purpose of the bicameral system was to prevent mob rule and is EXACTLY what the framers of the constitution had in mind. If you do not like this system then consider supporting a smaller federal government and stronger state governments - fasda, on 02/22/2009, -3/+28but it does give Alaska a fighting chance against California. Would you want a tyrannical majority who could legislate as they please?
- inactive, on 02/22/2009, -16/+40The 17th amendment along with the 16th amendment dramatically centralized the government and removed any State control over the Federal Government. These amendments destroyed the Constitution.
- HaeYu, on 02/22/2009, -0/+24No, FlaG8r's point is that he's just correcting all the above dummies who've confused how the positions are filled with how many are from each state. The 17th amendment has nothing to do with 2 from each.
- Paranor01, on 02/22/2009, -5/+28Marriage was not invented by religion. It was invented as a legally binding contract to integrate the wealth & power of 1 family, into another. That's it.
Religion adopted it and made it "virtuous" by saying that marriage was more important than the true feelings of love.
As for "mullets", isn't that a form of hairstyle from the 50's ? Should have been illegal as soon as the 1st one was shown lol (that of course being sarcasm about it being illegal, just so you don't try to twist that phrase like you have with many others of mine.)
As for the "root of the freakin problem", Prop 8 IS telling a group of people how to live by denying them the same legal standing as someone else because their sexuality is different than what a religion says it should be. Grow up. - Nothlit, on 02/23/2009, -2/+23So if Senators are representing a state, then why are the people choosing them? Why not the state itself, i.e. the state legislature or the governor? If the House represents the people, and the Senate represents the states, then the members of each body ought to be chosen accordingly.
Edit: Also, the Bill of Rights is *in* the Constitution. By definition, any amendment to the Constitution is part of the Constitution. On the other hand, 17th Amendment is not part of the "Bill of Rights" since that phrase applies to only the first ten amendments. You seem to be tossing phrases around without really giving consideration to what they mean. - diggydougie, on 02/23/2009, -1/+21Anything that slows down the wheels of government is fine by me. It seems that the stuff that is rushed through is always bad for us. The homeland security act, the bank bailout, the stimulus program...
- thebigsix, on 02/22/2009, -14/+33It's amazingly funny how the republicans are all of a sudden so concerned with constitutional rights and doing what's right for the country. Where the hell were you people for the last 8 years.
And while I'm at it, the banks and the stock market are supposedly all in a hissy because they think Obama wants to nationalize the banks, which they say will ruin the banks. Really? So the banks are doing OK by themselves now? Why do they have their hand out for money. - revisrev, on 02/22/2009, -0/+18I think the abolitionists favored slaves not counting as far as representation was concerned as they were not citizens. I believe that the 3/5 thing was a compromise, a.k.a. the 3/5 compromise.
- libertymeister, on 02/22/2009, -8/+24Remember that 1913 brought us the 16th and 17th Amendments, as well as the Federal Reserve. This was no accident, it was part of the progressive movement to make popular democracy the structure of our land, rather than a federalist republic. The sovereignty and strength of the states was undermined in one fell swoop.
And once the Federal Reserve could just issue debt on the nation's behalf, it meant there was no brake of any kind on expansive government growth. This was not a matter of if it would all fall apart, but when.
Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and repeal the Federal Reserve Act or at least open up the money system to competition. See how quickly funny money disappears. - elliottjgriffin, on 02/23/2009, -4/+20@govsucks... You have no real understanding of the Constitution. The 3/5 COMPROMISE, as it is called, was as ex-slave Frederick Douglass wrote: the greatest thing that the Founders ever penned. His rationale, and in my opinion it is extremely cogent, was that this compromise brought Southern states into the fold and did not allow them to become a separate country with no hope of abolishing slavery at a future point. And he was right.
The point that everyone is missing, and again further elucidating their lack of understanding, is that having the Senate directly elected by "the people" is dangerous insofar that the people can be manipulated and controlled. We are by nature irrational and reactionary. Having our Senators beholden to the whims of the masses removes the objectivity the Founders entrusted to them. In a post 17th Amendment world lobbyists, interest groups, and everything WRONG with our modern system now have power over our Senators, whereas previously they answer solely to their respective State legislature.
This is key because the State legislature was a refinement on the public...a filtration of our mob mentality. They are one step removed from the mindless reactionary world in which we the people live in. With that one step away from general idiocy they are best trusted to select a representative to send to Washington with the interests of THEIR state in mind. A Texas senator would fight for higher returns on federally-leased oil lands, while a Pennsylvania Senator would fight the exportation of manufacturing jobs to protect their steel industry, and on and on... Instead, we are given a system where both chambers are bought and paid for by special interests and held hostage by our lunacy. The objectivity is lost. Would NAFTA/CAFTA exist if a block of 30 senators in a the original model had to vote on losing their state's primary industries? Hell no...they'd be gone over night. Yet with the 17th Amendment they can pass legislation against their constituents interests and then rattle the saber over the STUPID issues we the people hold dear (guns, abortion, blah blah) and maintain their power.
And finally, on the subject of democracy...someone else on here commented correctly that the Founders were afraid of democracy, and that person was dead-on. I suggest anyone who ventures to have an opinion read the Founders' works and see for yourself their overt fear of the people. When Ben Franklin walked out of the Constitutional Convention, a peasant woman asked him what they had given the people. And he responded, "A republic...if you can keep it."
Things like the 17th Amendment prove without a doubt we could not. - supferrets, on 02/22/2009, -19/+33Yes, because repealing the Seventeenth Amendment is a high ***** priority right now.
- tekgnos, on 02/23/2009, -0/+14We have kept it together for over 200!
Thank goodness we don't have a loose fiscal policy or anything like that..... - tnrich, on 02/23/2009, -0/+14We do not, and should never have a democracy in this republic. It would be the end of liberty. I am amazed at just how shallow the thinking on digg is. Consider this:
At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin.
The term republic had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the Revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.
The American Republic required strict limitation of government power. Those powers permitted would be precisely defined and delegated by the people, with all public officials being bound by their oath of office to uphold the Constitution. The democratic process would be limited to the election of our leaders and not used for granting special privileges to any group or individual nor for defining rights. - vat0r, on 02/22/2009, -2/+16Thank you.
- mikeymondavi, on 02/23/2009, -7/+20This is way over due. I believe the argument can be made that the 17th Amendment has done more to promote the growth of federal government than any other action in our country's history. The 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, provided for the popular election of U.S. Senators. Our original Constitution created a system whereby the people of the United States were represented in Washington by the members of the House of Representatives, while the state governments were represented by Senators. Each state legislature would appoint two people to serve staggered terms in the Senate. The people had their voice in Washington, and so did the States. Tell me, do you think that the federal government would have successfully usurped so many powers from State governments? Would the U.S. Congress have placed so many unfunded mandates on the backs of the states? Our founding fathers felt that in times of peace 90% of all government should emanate from state and local levels, and only 5% from the federal level. The growth of the federal sector at the expense of local power can be traced back to the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Repeal it. Return the power to the local governments. Right now the government of Mexico has an official representative in Washington; the government of New Mexico does not. This lame quasi-mob rule needs to end.
- Husky217, on 02/23/2009, -0/+13The Constitution was not envisioned as evolving with the country. It was to hold back the government, to protect and preserve liberty of the individual.
Democracy is tyranny of the majority. - diggydougie, on 02/23/2009, -0/+12How about enforcing the first 10 amendments as written first.
- diggydougie, on 02/23/2009, -1/+13How about enforcing the first 10 amendments as written first.
- diggydougie, on 02/23/2009, -1/+13Democracy needs checks though. Remember, democracy is just two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
- TheEngineer2008, on 02/22/2009, -5/+17I do believe in federalism. IMO the best way to keep tyrannical majority at bay is for state legislatures to appoint senators.
Our Founders wisely added several steps to keep 51% of the people from ruling over the 49%. One was having a house of the people -- the House of Representatives, a house of states -- the Senate, and a president chosen with an Electoral College intermediary (the theory being that a directly elected president could claim a mandate of the people, resulting in tyranny). - u8eR, on 02/22/2009, -0/+12It's not a dictatorship. It's simply a government that is not responsive to its people. Yes, a dictatorship is just like that, but not all governments like that are dictatorships. Instead, we have a polyarchy. Robert Dahl of Yale has written extensively on it, and you should probably read some of it.
- jefree, on 02/22/2009, -37/+49George will is an intellectual idiot and rarely gets to the root of any problem. The reason every state has two senators is so that small states don't get taken advantage of by big states. However, if I thought that having state legislators elect federal senators would stop the states from giving away state power and money to the federal government then I would be all for it. But with small states wanting $$ and big states having more tax payers with $$ then what has slowly developed is the fed government pulling more tax money from people and the small states hoping it will get redistributed in their favor. The federal government getting more and more powerful has set up a non-power-diverse governing body that does not respond well to crisis and local community needs. Maybe my comments are off target, but this is the problem that comes to mind when I think of how fed senators are elected and distributed.
- OrangeTide, on 02/22/2009, -0/+12abolitionist did not want southern states to count slaves for the purpose of allocating congressmen. As in a slave is worth ZERO. Southerns wanted slaves to be counted the same as a person, even though they were not willing to give a slave any of the rights that a person has. Like always politics is about was is more advantageous and not about ethics or justice.
- zephc, on 02/22/2009, -0/+12Perhaps any senator / congresscritter voting should be required to take a test on anything being voted for. 5 questions per page of the bill. THAT might keep them from passing crazy-long bills.
- Chakat, on 02/22/2009, -0/+11@mgraham80
Do you realize why it's so hard to amend the constitution? Most of the issues the federal government tries to manage today would be better off handled by the states anyways. - MixMastaKooz, on 02/22/2009, -7/+18I don't think it's much of an argument to say, "Well, the 19th century produced the likes of Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Calhoun, so therefore, we should revert to how these gentleman were elected." Why? Because there were stinkers elected to the Senate then as there are stinkers now. In fact, I think you could argue that state legislator elected Senators exacerbated the situation that led to the Civil War. Therefore, we should keep the 17th amendment.
The reason they created to Senate was many-fold: 1) protect minority interests, 2) a less reactionary house (ergo, being elected every six years) 3) and making sure large and small geographic regions are represented (which can justify Alaska having the same number of votes as California and Rhode Island). Whether it's a popular vote or a legislative vote, these ideals are still preserved. - Madrigalian, on 02/22/2009, -0/+11Exactly right.
- inactive, on 02/22/2009, -6/+17Well, both statements are true. Liberals are very committed to giving lip service to diversity. In fact, I wish they would be diverse enough and tolerant enough to stop telling me what to think.
- pwdrskier, on 02/22/2009, -11/+22Interesting points but taking away direct election of senators gives the power to elect those senators to those already in office. It takes away the power of the people to make a decision as to who they want to lead them. While it may serve somewhat to remove the senators from the influences of Washington, corruption will always exist and influences on elected officials while extreme can be handled in a way that does not change the constitution. Its not that I'm against amending the constitution or that im against progress its that in this case its not needed or warranted.
- wtbuser, on 02/23/2009, -2/+13You'll notice liberals never really care too much for "diversity" of opinion or ideology... ever.
- j01101010, on 02/22/2009, -2/+12I live in Nebraska and we have a unicameral legislature and while I don't always agree with what it does it definitely gets things done a lot faster than a bicameral would. The reason most states (and the federal government) have a bicameral legislature is because that is how it started and in order for that to change both houses need to vote in favor of an amendment that abolishes one house, which is essentially signing your own pink slip.
Basically because the senators are doing what they want, not what is in the best interest of the people we will never abolish the Senate. - novenator, on 02/22/2009, -23/+33George Will has had people fooled for far too long. He is an asshat with large vocabulary who is pushing a right wing agenda with selective usage of facts. Like the windbag Limbaugh, the time of Will is over.
FTA - "Although liberals give lip service to "diversity..."
*****. Liberals are now and always have been committed to diversity. - muckemuck, on 02/22/2009, -26/+35Why do we need the Senate at all? Bush unilaterally passed the UAW bailout.
The Stimulus bill was passed without ANYONE in Congress having read the whole thing.
TARP was passed despite overwhelming opposition from the people.
Why not just be honest about where we are and move to a full on dictatorship... - mikelieman, on 02/22/2009, -2/+11Yeah, and when Prohibition failed, did you neglect to repeal it?
- fasda, on 02/22/2009, -5/+14Lets not forget that letting state legislators pick the senators led to massive corruption. Party bosses and cooperations chose the Senators and did their bidding with no regard for the people of their state
- TheInformer, on 02/23/2009, -0/+9People's interests = House of Representatives
State's interests = Senate
What's so hard about that? The Founding Fathers spent a lot of time arguing over how the Constitution should be set up. They gave a long hard look at the various governmental forms in theory and in operation and decided that the above two lines were the best compromise.
They were right.
It's like hearing for the call to abolish the Electoral College. People who have spent about 5 minutes over the past 30 years analyzing the Consitution know better than the original framers.
Oh please. - Dougman82, on 02/23/2009, -1/+10What? Everyone knows Communism or Fundamentalism was the way to go with Civ. Well, Civ II at least.
- THETEH, on 02/23/2009, -1/+10"What remains is the anti-democratic two senators per state allocation..."
The two senators per state allocation is WRITTEN IN TO THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION. It was the founding fathers' idea. Therefore, calling it anti-democratic is kinda silly. Not to be rude or anything, but READ THE CONSTITUTION. - u8eR, on 02/22/2009, -12/+20George Will exemplifies perfectly the notion of polyarchy, which Robert Dahl of Yale has discussed at length. Essentially, you have elite rule and every once in a while the people have vote on which elite they think should rule. Noam Chomsky calls this the illusion of choice. It cannot be said to be democratic, in any sense of the word, because policies are not responsive at all to popular public opinion. It's easy to cite example, but I won't waste your time. Suffice it to say, George Will's idea of removing even further the public's involvement in decision making is a strong step toward polyarchy and a bigger step away from democracy.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 292 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is