Gold Supporter
- Messages
- 9,836
- Reactions
- 13,327
"By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail." – Ben Franklin
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
For those complaining about how the Senate doesn't represent the "majority of the people" and California vs. Montana, the Senate was originally designed to represent the states' interests and not "the peoples' interests". The states were to have equal power among themselves because each is a sovereign power and was to control the national government and to limits its power. Most governmental power was to reside with the states so that the people could control that level. That thought certainly has been corrupted. The Seventeenth Amendment changed the senators from being chosen by the legislatures of the states (U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 3) to election by the people of a state (you can view these documents at: Constitution of the United States - Official . That has taken the original idea that the states would protect us from the national government and thrown that out so that we are now at the mercy of the feds.
I can't really see the harm in the people of the state electing senators rather than having their legislature appoint them.
Precisely the problem. People don't see the harm in it.
Here it is:
Senators being directly electable by the population means that they have to do populist things to get elected. Populist measures generally demonize business/industry and take stuff from one person or group to give to another.
The Senate was meant to be somewhat isolated from populism by both the longer terms and the appointment byt the legislature of the state./ It was a way to gain the longer term perspective of the House of Lords (to balance the House of Commons, which was already, probably immediately beset by welfare populism) witghout creating a permement, titled class.
Without that detechment, all kinds of ideas with short term appeal and no long term merit get passed. Senators are looking for a piece of the pie to bring home to their districts just like the representatives are, and they will prostitute themselves to get it, rather than looking out for the sovereignty of their state. The Senate and the House have no significant difference and no longer provide checks and balances to each other since the method of election was amended. The original check and balance is exemplified in the duties assigned to each half of Congress- the Senate to ratify treaties, the House to initiate spending bills, etc. There is SUPPOSED to be a different perspective in each.
Yes, that's the point of having a cut-out. The state legislatures can be corrupted by popularity issues. The House of Representatives can be corrupted by popularity issues. But the Senate could stand back a bit from it, in the past. Nothing guarantees it can't be corrupted- the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. But it's much more likely with direct elections. The incentives changed drastically with the change in electoral procedure.
When you say the legislature could appoint someone to bring home the bacon, it would be for different types of "bacon". It would be for representing the ability of the states to maintain some independence from the Federal government.
It's a bit of a subtle thing, but you have to look at the history before that amendment and after, and the effects are pretty clear- a quick slide into subservience to the Federal government followed quickly upon that change.
Gunner- you're listing all the symptoms and pieces, you're just not putting together in a cause and effect analysis. You're almost there, amigo.
Think of it like when you have a boss that signs your paycheck, and a boss who tasks you with things to do. In the end, which one of them gets the deciding vote? It's always the guy who holds your paycheck. Making Senators directly electable contributed to that slide you're pointing out.
I am trying to get the folkes to answer what is the trigger that sets their survival plan to action. Bank closures? Riots, what is it going to take, a fire next door and people dieing in the streets When are you going to pull the plug on life today and start your plan?
jj
The overall global food price index increased by 33% from January 2010 to January 2011. Did your income rise by that much in 2011? Did the value of your investments increase by that much in 2011? If not, storing extra food is far more practical than maintaining a savings or investment account.
Hello,
I work for a television production company and we're currently developing an idea for a new show with a basic concept of documenting a group of people who want to start a new, self-reliant community away from the modern world.
We're casting our net far and wide and I've searching through message boards and forums for anyone that might be an interesting character. Does an idea like this appeal to you? Or do you know anyone who would be good for a project like this?
Please feel free to write me back or call me with any questions.
Adam
Good luck, it could be a great reality show. Please get some people who really know what they are doing. There's nothing worse than a "reality" show where you scoff while watching it because the things people do are so implausible. I've seen "reality" shows where, if the audience tried to follow the ideas in the show, they would be in a world of hurt.
Like if you tried to mine gold following the Hoffman plan?I've seen "reality" shows where, if the audience tried to follow the ideas in the show, they would be in a world of hurt.
Like if you tried to mine gold following the Hoffman plan?