What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official Donald J. Trump Impeachment (Whistleblower) Thread*** (10 Viewers)

What would be the purpose of even having a senate if it had the same qualifications as the house?  At that point why not do away with it?  It seems to me that is what some are arguing, wanting population representation only.  That is an argument to be had, but I don't know that they, themselves, now precisely what they are arguing.  Maybe someone can help me.  Someone upset that senate seats are not distributed on a percentage basis of population.  Are you arguing for exactly that, and if so shy then not simply eliminate the Senate altogether or reconstitute both the house and the senate into one hybrid chamber representing a more direct democracy.  Also, why not just absolutely direct democracy?

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
What would be the purpose of even having a senate if it had the same qualifications as the house?  At that point why not do away with it?  It seems to me that is what some are arguing, wanting population representation only.  That is an argument to be had, but I don't know that they, themselves, now precisely what they are arguing.  Maybe someone can help me.  Someone upset that senate seats are not distributed on a percentage basis of population.  Are you arguing for exactly that, and if so shy then not simply eliminate the Senate altogether or reconstitute both the house and the senate into one hybrid chamber representing a more direct democracy.  Also, why not just absolutely direct democracy?
Click to expand...
It made far more sense at the time it was implemented.  Now, not so much.

 
The talk of changing Senate distribution is foolhardy, in my opinion.

The talk belongs in the House - which needs to be like doubled in size. And I believe can be done with a simple change in law.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
whoknew said:
The talk of changing Senate distribution is foolhardy, in my opinion.

The talk belongs in the House - which needs to be like doubled in size.
Click to expand...
This I agree with and, without looking, I believe there is ample arguments in favor of such by way of constitutional mandate/requirement over the law that was passed a long time ago setting up current distribution 

 
whoknew said:
New GOP talking point today - Trump cared about investigating corruption, he just went about it the wrong way. What a joke. 
 

I guess that’s why he only wanted the investigation announced - not actually completed. 
Click to expand...
The Republicans are passionate about investigating corruption related to the white house.  

Not the current president, obviously.  A past vice president. 

It's important that this investigation be televised. Not the investigation of trump, but the investigation of Biden.  Coincidentally, immediately after Biden started polling well. 

What's really important is that someone close to the former vice president might have received money from a foreign government.  Not that the current president actually received foreign election interference, asked for it on national television and received it that day, while foreign governments routinely stay at trump properties and directly pay the president's businesses while he dramatically changes long standing US foreign policy. 

What's important is that a white house official's child is in an office that they aren't qualified to hold, earning money that may compromise their father's decision making. Not Ivanka or Kushner or Eric, specifically Hunter Biden. 

Because if corrupt rich people from a foreign government indirectly provided money to someone in the white house they could get away with murder. Not literal murder with a bone saw of an American, but figuratively.  

It was just really important to him to make sure there was no corruption involving the former vice president.  But not to us, because it's not corruption when the president does it. 

Because the American people need to know things. Not trump voters obviously, because they don't want to know anything that isn't blatantly self serving, and refuse to believe that they elected one of the most corrupt,  banana republic regimes in the world because they are owning the libs. 

 
Mile High said:
Is it? If more states were blue would many here still be calling to change the Senate ?
Click to expand...
What does the constitution have to say about what would have to happen to do that? Is it like the Electoral College where it would be almost impossible to pass changes to?

 
JohnnyU said:
What does the constitution have to say about what would have to happen to do that? Is it like the Electoral College where it would be almost impossible to pass changes to?
Click to expand...
It would be almost impossible since to change the constitution you have to have the state's vote on it. What state is going to vote to give up power?

 
Mile High said:
Is it? If more states were blue would many here still be calling to change the Senate ?
Click to expand...
I think we’re just talking past each other now.  Technically yes, it is a different topic.  I’m only talking about how senators are distributed among the states and changing that equation.  You seem to be talking about major enough shifts in population to change current political makeup of states, thus altering power structure within senate to the political parties 

 
a constitutional amendment to change senate representation will never happen.  If you want structural changes, figure out a way for the Congreff to reclaim oversight.  It could be related to how the judicial branches settles executive/legislative disputes - i.e. fast track subpoena questions straight to the SC.  It could be a dramatic limitation of the war powers.  If could be finding a way to punish a president without removing him - there's got to be something between exoneration and removal - I have no idea what that means but it seems like we need something.

I don't know what the answer is, but part of the problem is that the Congreff has given the executive more and more power, unchecked, for decades, and now their oversight is meaningless.

 
whoknew said:
The talk of changing Senate distribution is foolhardy, in my opinion.

The talk belongs in the House - which needs to be like doubled in size. And I believe can be done with a simple change in law.
Click to expand...


That one guy said:
This I agree with and, without looking, I believe there is ample arguments in favor of such by way of constitutional mandate/requirement over the law that was passed a long time ago setting up current distribution 
Click to expand...
This might be a fun thread topic on it’s own, but do you think an increase in House of Reps size (I’m thinking on the order of 50%) would provide a better route to a national 3rd party than any current initiatives?  Would such diversity of congressional distribution also encourage a reclamation of powers since delegated to the executive?  Or would the pessimistic view of nothing more than further consolidation of power to the two parties occur?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm no constitution lawyer but wouldn't ratifying a change to the two states per senator require unanimous approval from all states?  

WSJ opinion: two senators per state is the right number  

"With a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate, Congress could propose to amend this provision just as any other. But ratifying the amendment—as was the case under the Articles of Confederation—would require unanimous approval by the states, as opposed to the three-fourths needed for all other amendments."

Seems like a pipe dream if you expect Wyoming or the Dakotas or whomever else to approve this.

 
moleculo said:
Congreff has given the executive more and more power, unchecked, for decades, and now their oversight is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Agreed. We the people have allowed the creation of an imperial presidency. We can take it back, but it will take exercising the will of the people at the ballot box.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
The problem isn't the conservative structure of government (via the Senate) -- it was designed that way and worked pretty well all things considered.

The problem is that we undid the other pieces the made the Senate a more reasoned "cooling off" chamber than the House.  Today's Republican Senators would never have been elected if state governments weren't gerrymandered to death and Senators were still elected indirectly.

I'd much rather see us fix the errors we made in undoing the wisdom of the original structure than I would undoing even more of it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
The problem isn't the conservative structure of government (via the Senate) -- it was designed that way and worked pretty well all things considered.

The problem is that we undid the other pieces the made the Senate a more reasoned "cooling off" chamber than the House.  Today's Republican Senators would never have been elected if state governments weren't gerrymandered to death and Senators were still elected indirectly.

I'd much rather see us fix the errors we made in undoing the wisdom of the original structure than I would undoing even more of it.
Click to expand...
Citizens United put the Real people in a hammer lock. 

 
moleculo said:
a constitutional amendment to change senate representation will never happen.  If you want structural changes, figure out a way for the Congreff to reclaim oversight.  It could be related to how the judicial branches settles executive/legislative disputes - i.e. fast track subpoena questions straight to the SC.  It could be a dramatic limitation of the war powers.  If could be finding a way to punish a president without removing him - there's got to be something between exoneration and removal - I have no idea what that means but it seems like we need something.

I don't know what the answer is, but part of the problem is that the Congreff has given the executive more and more power, unchecked, for decades, and now their oversight is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Side note: it's not "Congreff", it's "Congrefs". And it's not "Congrefs", it's "Congreſs".

The weird letter that looks like a lowercase "f" is called a "long s", and it was used in the 1700s when a word started with "s" or as a replacement for the first "s" (and only the first "s") in "ss".

 
[scooter] said:
Side note: it's not "Congreff", it's "Congrefs". And it's not "Congrefs", it's "Congreſs".

The weird letter that looks like a lowercase "f" is called a "long s", and it was used in the 1700s when a word started with "s" or as a replacement for the first "s" (and only the first "s") in "ss".
Click to expand...
thank you.  Now I have to figure out how to type "ſ".  Where is the test forum when you need it?

 
  • Thinking
Reactions: JAA
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
The problem isn't the conservative structure of government (via the Senate) -- it was designed that way and worked pretty well all things considered.

The problem is that we undid the other pieces the made the Senate a more reasoned "cooling off" chamber than the House.  Today's Republican Senators would never have been elected if state governments weren't gerrymandered to death and Senators were still elected indirectly.

I'd much rather see us fix the errors we made in undoing the wisdom of the original structure than I would undoing even more of it.
Click to expand...
would senators be more or less beholden to dark money if they were appointed by state legislatures instead of elected?

 
Bucky86 said:
🤔 Oh. So impeachment is no longer bad for the country?

Jennifer Epstein

@jeneps

NEW: Joni Ernst tells me that there would “immediately” be a Republican push to impeach Biden over Ukraine if he’s elected
Click to expand...
Weird....lets say he did everything claimed and even had the power to do everything claimed.  It's the same thing that they just let Trump walk free from  :lmao:  

 
The Commish said:
Weird....lets say he did everything claimed and even had the power to do everything claimed.  It's the same thing that they just let Trump walk free from  :lmao:  
Click to expand...
Good thing Biden was just doing it all to get elected for the good of the people so it’s not impeachable.  

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
The problem isn't the conservative structure of government (via the Senate) -- it was designed that way and worked pretty well all things considered.

The problem is that we undid the other pieces the made the Senate a more reasoned "cooling off" chamber than the House.  Today's Republican Senators would never have been elected if state governments weren't gerrymandered to death and Senators were still elected indirectly.

I'd much rather see us fix the errors we made in undoing the wisdom of the original structure than I would undoing even more of it.
Click to expand...
Hey, total agreement on something. A thousand times this. The structure was there for a reason. It was there to concern people with local politics and to provide a body that was somewhat beyond reach of the people to a degree. The check at the ballot box for the representation by a senator was at the local level.

Woodrow Wilson and the Evangelical/Protestant democratic reform movement had complete disregard for the tender structures of political science and instead believed in the all-encompassing notions of enfranchisement, reform, and religion that swept the nation in the progressive Teens, culminating in Amendments 17-19. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dutch said:
Yup, time for a conference realignment.  Bring Maryland back to the acc where it belongs 
Click to expand...
Fatguy's post also brings up the information that some number greater than zero of authors wanted the new republic's constitution to be revisited every 19 years for serious updating by a new generation of voters. Admittedly, that may have required a wisdom, maturity and commitment to justice that continues to escape us.

Granted that we were working from a new framework of ideas at the time, and still managed to probably improve on whatever had come before it anywhere. But we could have done better and, even worse, made it practically impossible to change what we had established. Lots of scholars and FBG posters believe that was the right thing to do. I believe it was simply a capitulation to the American Right of its time and served mostly to maintain right wing obstruction in this country for another 200 years.

 
Mr. Ham said:
It’s worse than that. Impeachment of Trump was based on things he undoubtedly did. What Ernst is showing here is that the GOP will rally around false charges to persecute political rivals, and that they will validate Trump’s meddling to begin with by amplifying the lies he tried to get Ukraine to fall in line with. 

The GOP is reckless and authoritarian, and at the core big fat liars.
Click to expand...
It’s not a GOP or DNC thing, it’s a political thing. See McCarthyism

 
roadkill1292 said:
Fatguy's post also brings up the information that some number greater than zero of authors wanted the new republic's constitution to be revisited every 19 years for serious updating by a new generation of voters. Admittedly, that may have required a wisdom, maturity and commitment to justice that continues to escape us.

Granted that we were working from a new framework of ideas at the time, and still managed to probably improve on whatever had come before it anywhere. But we could have done better and, even worse, made it practically impossible to change what we had established. Lots of scholars and FBG posters believe that was the right thing to do. I believe it was simply a capitulation to the American Right of its time and served mostly to maintain right wing obstruction in this country for another 200 years.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe that the notions of right and left could possibly apply. There's no way to take the modern American right and trace its intellectual forebears. It was a dialectic that brought us to where we are on both sides of the aisle. There's tons of logical and substantive bleeding along the way. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

timschochet
New York Magazine: Donald Trump is running for President again.
9 10 11
Replies
522
Views
12K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
knowledge dropper
***OFFICIAL Trump vs. DeSantis Thread***
2 3 4
Replies
197
Views
5K
timschochet
timschochet

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 11 (members: 0, guests: 11)
Top