Journal Chacham's Journal: Quick Thought: Replace Senate with State's votes. 21
Trash the Senate, replace with one vote per state, voted on by the state's legislature.
Just a thought.
Trash the Senate, replace with one vote per state, voted on by the state's legislature.
Just a thought.
I think that would work (Score:2)
Re:I think that would work (Score:2)
That is certainly part of it. It would also protects state's interests, and keep the Senate from dealing with anything that was simply not a national issue, as the states themselves would want to keep it for themselves.
Re:I think that would work (Score:2)
That sounds good. I suspect it's just about the result originally intended, except when the Constitution was written just notifying each legislature and awaiting their vote would have added days of delay, making negotiations very aw
Re:I think that would work (Score:2)
Ever read a comment, be happy, and realize that it was you who wrote it? Well, that's what *should* have happened, but i forgot to write it.
Basically, that is *exactly* what i meant to say. Thanx. Now i like you.
particularly if you "raise the bar" a little. Perhaps, like amendments,
If the state's were the Senat
Re:I think that would work (Score:2)
Certainly: my concern is the risk for some states to force through a measure agai
Re:I think that would work (Score:2)
I figure that would even it out.
Then again, these are politiians, so you may have a point.
Hey... (Score:2)
And we don't really want each state's legislative vote down to one man--that'd make the man as powerful as a governor. Better make it two per state...
Hey, wait a mintue! This is exactly how the original US Constitution had Senators!
Really, IMO direct election of 6-year senators is hardly the worst part of our system. If we were going to amend the
Re:Hey... (Score:2)
If required, and that is hardly ever, Executive Order.
Wouldn't it make sense to have the states send a representative to cast their vote
If absolutely required, perhaps, in rare cases. Probably the governor.
via proxy?
No. Proxy == evil;
And we don't really want each state's legislative vote down to one man--that'd make the man as powerful as a governor. Better make it two per state.
Faulty logic.
Your idea of the proxy is only to for
Re:Hey... (Score:1)
Matters of opinion, mine are: FDR rocked, and Clinton was the Second Best President right next to FDR. :-D
Though honestly, I think that Term limits help to remove some of the responsability from the shoulders of the President, after two terms they can honestly say "Well, I have to step down now." With a man like Clinton who worked so hard as President (all jokes aside), you can just look at how though eig
Re:Hey... (Score:2)
Answer: "I want to run again."
We should stop limiting our own choices by forcing Presidents who are willing to go for another four years to not run again. How many lackluster presidents have we gotten because everyone of quality couldn't run?
Re:Hey... (Score:1)
I will trade skipping a third Clinton term for having skipped a third Regan term, given another term even Cliton wouldn't have been able to get us outa the mess this country would've been in!
Re:Hey... (Score:2)
XOs shouldn't be used to:
* Ratify treaties
* Declare War
* Set the budget
And ALL of those pass the Senate. Tust me--you don't want the Federal government bogged down by the crap that is State Government. The world is a far better place with the FEDERALIST system we have.
History has proven that the masses are led too easily, and so when presidents went for two terms they excused themselves (similar to current practice on the IAB). After FDR abused h
Re:Hey... (Score:1)
Re:Hey... (Score:2)
You don't do your cause very good by getting the length of a President's term wrong. (Hint: Bush was elected in 2000, and he's running again now, in 2004.)
Democracy is the best form of government because it formally gives the people the authority to recognize the government--making their activ
Re:Hey... (Score:1)
Re:Hey... (Score:2)
It never can be fixed--or if it can, it hasn't ever since small towns starting having direct democracy. (They may have done so in pre-colonial Europe!)
Despite all that, however, Democracy does work.
Obviously, there is something wrong with your hypothesis.
Re:Hey... (Score:2)
I could be wrong, but I've heard rumors about the existence of some sort of instantaneous communications system, using cables or radio waves: they wouldn't need to send anyone anywhere.
Besides: how often does it actually happen that a law must be passed in an emergency? If it does, what do you do when you discover Congress is in recess, so everyone'
Re:Hey... (Score:2)
I agree.
State Legislatures (Score:2)
You might as well give ADM, GE, Cargill and others veto powers outright.
Unmanageable... (Score:2)
I think the answer is to go back to the old method-- state legislature appoints Senators. The whole point to a two-house legislature was to balance the desires of the people (the House) with the desires of the states (the Senate). Since we threw that out, we have become even more of a nanny-state because the people are becoming too stupid to do anything for themselves-- therefore all they do is ask the gove
Re:Unmanageable... (Score:2)
Exactly!
This way, they'd only do the Senate business begrudgingly, and with less playing around, so the rules are clear cut.