|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 11, 2021 16:57:49 GMT -5
The problem with "do the right thing" is that my Senator's idea of what the right thing is might be different than mine.
So I vote for the Senator who I think will likely make the choices I would want to be made. Which is ... um ... pretty much the same as saying that Senators should make the choices that the people who elected them support.
The exceptions are when the Senator knows something that the people don't know, which certainly can be true.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Feb 11, 2021 17:01:05 GMT -5
If slavery was reinstated, my first reaction would be shock. But my second reaction would be to get me some White slaves. I need a new fence to be erected.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Feb 11, 2021 18:16:13 GMT -5
My last comment/question on this subject (promise): How should senators vote in this impeachment trial? Should? I have no idea. I'd like them to vote 100-0 to convict but they're going to do whatever they want, which is probably determined by some combination of party affiliation, political calculus, and their sense of duty.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 11, 2021 18:30:09 GMT -5
But, hey, if you think senators are there just to follow the orders of the people, so be it. Give me leaders any day of the week. Sometimes the unpopular thing is the right thing. That's what the Senate is there for, otherwise it has no purpose at all (which may be the case). Please find one historical document that supports the notion that the purpose of the Senate (i.e. why it was formed) is to do the right thing. Second (and I've asked you this before on this exact subject, to which I got no response), who decides what the "right thing" is?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 18:38:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 11, 2021 18:53:28 GMT -5
That article fails to mention that Senators are popularly elected and have been since 1913. :/ The checking function of the Senate was certainly important, but the main narrative for why the Senate was formed was a compromise between large and small states. Just look up the Connecticut Compromise. Also, regarding the checking function, the Senate was conceptualized as a way for states to maintain sovereignty -- two votes from a state to overrule the will of the people. If anything, it was driven by states rights and elitism, not by some belief in a universal truth. None of this means that the Senate was created to "do the right thing." You're either over-simplifying history or convoluting several historical threads together, I can't decide.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 11, 2021 18:54:35 GMT -5
Let's cut the bull here. The real purpose of the Senate was so that the free states (who had lots of voters) couldn't eliminate slavery by outvoting the slave states (who had very few voters because so many of their residents were not allowed to be citizens). The was the main driver right from the start of the "Great Compromise" (aka the "Connecticut Compromise").
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 18:58:03 GMT -5
That article fails to mention that Senators are popularly elected and have been since 1913. :/ The checking function of the Senate was certainly important, but the main narrative for why the Senate was formed was a compromise between large and small states. Just look up the Connecticut Compromise. Also, regarding the checking function, the Senate was conceptualized as a way for states to maintain sovereignty -- two votes from a state to overrule the will of the people. If anything, it was driven by states rights and elitism, not by some belief in a universal truth. None of this means that the Senate was created to "do the right thing." You're either over-simplifying history or convoluting several historical threads together, I can't decide. So, I am right? You admit it, then you deny it. Whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 18:59:32 GMT -5
Let's cut the bull here. The real purpose of the Senate was so that the free states (who had lots of voters) couldn't eliminate slavery by outvoting the slave states (who had very few voters because so many of their residents were not allowed to be citizens). The was the main driver right from the start of the "Great Compromise" (aka the "Connecticut Compromise"). Yes, maybe. But the point is that they were going to be independent.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Feb 11, 2021 19:03:54 GMT -5
Let's cut the bull here. The real purpose of the Senate was so that the free states (who had lots of voters) couldn't eliminate slavery by outvoting the slave states (who had very few voters because so many of their residents were not allowed to be citizens). The was the main driver right from the start of the "Great Compromise" (aka the "Connecticut Compromise"). Yes, maybe. But the point is that they were going to be independent. Not from their state. If you want "independent" you look to the justices. They are appointed FOR LIFE. No need for any re-election or reappointment. That was so they would indeed be free to "do the right thing". Senators, however, only had six-year terms before they would be re-elected or cast out. Whether it was the state legislatures or a direct vote of the people, they still faced re-election pressure.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 11, 2021 19:04:13 GMT -5
That article fails to mention that Senators are popularly elected and have been since 1913. :/ The checking function of the Senate was certainly important, but the main narrative for why the Senate was formed was a compromise between large and small states. Just look up the Connecticut Compromise. Also, regarding the checking function, the Senate was conceptualized as a way for states to maintain sovereignty -- two votes from a state to overrule the will of the people. If anything, it was driven by states rights and elitism, not by some belief in a universal truth. None of this means that the Senate was created to "do the right thing." You're either over-simplifying history or convoluting several historical threads together, I can't decide. So, I am right? You admit it, then you deny it. Whatever. You're misrepresenting one minor historical factor for an overriding purpose. If you have been suggesting what that article does, you've done an awful job communicating it. And that opinion's explanation for the modern Senate loses force (again) because Senators are popular elected, and have been for over one hundred years. That opinion skims over that important fact which does major damage to your theory.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 11, 2021 19:11:03 GMT -5
A quote from James Madison on the Senate:
"In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, the people ought to have permanency and stability."
Let me know what in that quote supports the Senate is supposed to "do the right thing." If anything, it sounds like the Senate is supposed to protect the elite from the plebeians, not protect the country from unwise decisions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 19:16:57 GMT -5
Well, duh. The "right" thing is subjective. Protecting the elite from the plebians is what they considered the "right thing."
Again, not controversial. The Senate is not the House. If it were, it would be part of the House.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 11, 2021 19:24:15 GMT -5
Well, duh. The "right" thing is subjective. Amazing, we're making progress. If the "right thing" is subjective, directing Senators to do the "right thing" is a pretty empty instruction.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2021 19:28:50 GMT -5
How is it empty? They are still expected to do it, whether it's subjective or not. And that's the point: we elect them to do what they think is the right thing.
|
|