Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cynthia

How would we fix this "United States of America?"

Recommended Posts

That depends. If the issue is going to affect everybody, and it's in favor of the small states, the smaller states should be given a power in proportion to their population. If the issue is in favor of the smaller states, and won't affect anyone but them, then they should be given equal representation. However, that brings up the case in which the issue affects everybody, but is just downright unfair to the smaller states. In that situation, I think there should be a sort of panel of judges to decide if that is the case, and if it is, give the smaller states equal representation. Those are just my thoughts though, and this will never happen as it would require a major reconstruction of the government. And hey, if I can't even run an internet forum, what do I know about government?

Uhhh, that is why we have a bicameral Congress. For legislation to go though, the bill need the approval of BOTH houses so that it is fair to both large and small states. You guys make it sound like one house controls the other.

If there is one change I would like for congress, I would get rid of the 17th amendment. Direct election of senators have done nothing but to allow special interests to control the Senate which greatly increased the size of the federal government at the expense of state governments. The original intent of the Senate is to represent state sovereignty (in other words, making sure the federal government is following the Constitution and not trampling on state powers), not popular interests. We already have the House of Representatives for that.

Here's a food for thought: Let the states decide on controversial, "more-than-one-right-answer" issues like abortion, not the federal, "one-size-fits-all" government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Senate is to give the smaller states a chance and the House is to give due to a states population.
The point is so smaller states don't have that extra influence that they don't deserve. ~_~

So basically, the small states shouldn't have any real power in the government? A few of the larger states could basically shut down anything the smaller states wanted.

What are you talking about? Their power in government should be proportional to their population, which is why the house exists. The Senate kills the proportional representation by giving 2 extra members to California and... 2 to Alaska. This makes sense how, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Senate is to give the smaller states a chance and the House is to give due to a states population.
The point is so smaller states don't have that extra influence that they don't deserve. ~_~

So basically, the small states shouldn't have any real power in the government? A few of the larger states could basically shut down anything the smaller states wanted.

What are you talking about? Their power in government should be proportional to their population, which is why the house exists. The Senate kills the proportional representation by giving 2 extra members to California and... 2 to Alaska. This makes sense how, exactly?

So that the smaller states can have their interests served as well. Nobody's going to pay any attention to them without the Senate.

"Their power in government should be proportional to their population"

Why on earth would you want such a thing?

Edited by Destiny Puck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Senate is to give the smaller states a chance and the House is to give due to a states population.
The point is so smaller states don't have that extra influence that they don't deserve. ~_~

So basically, the small states shouldn't have any real power in the government? A few of the larger states could basically shut down anything the smaller states wanted.

What are you talking about? Their power in government should be proportional to their population, which is why the house exists. The Senate kills the proportional representation by giving 2 extra members to California and... 2 to Alaska. This makes sense how, exactly?

Exactly what you're talking about. You want voting to be proportional to the population, which is exactly why the House is in existence, which is pretty much an equal statement to small states should have no real power.

Here are some numbers for you. The House of Representatives has 435 members, on most issues all that is needed is a simple majority vote of 218 of those members. California, Texas, Florida, and New York together have 138 of those members. Why should any of the small states even bother when more than 60% of a vote is decided by four states? And you want to spread that to the Senate so those undeserving small states are screwed even more? In that case all the small states should secede from the United States and start their own country where they can have that voice that the Senate of the United States used to give them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn straight they get less representation, they have less people to be representing. That's the point of the House and Congress in general, but having a Senate eliminates that purpose. Why not just split up the larger states then? That way they would have less influence and the smaller voices will matter more in the House. But wait! Their population is STILL low so it doesn't make much more sense to split up larger states seeing as their representation is still the same because their state is small.

I'm only really playing devil's advocate with you all.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you talking about? Their power in government should be proportional to their population, which is why the house exists. The Senate kills the proportional representation by giving 2 extra members to California and... 2 to Alaska. This makes sense how, exactly?

Exactly what you're talking about. You want voting to be proportional to the population, which is exactly why the House is in existence, which is pretty much an equal statement to small states should have no real power.

Here are some numbers for you. The House of Representatives has 435 members, on most issues all that is needed is a simple majority vote of 218 of those members. California, Texas, Florida, and New York together have 138 of those members. Why should any of the small states even bother when more than 60% of a vote is decided by four states? And you want to spread that to the Senate so those undeserving small states are screwed even more? In that case all the small states should secede from the United States and start their own country where they can have that voice that the Senate of the United States used to give them.

It doesn't matter that we have a house of representatives to deal with the proportional representation issue, because all laws have to pass both houses, this gives the senate the power to kill bills which the house may pass overwhelmingly. Just take a look at the numbers:

Over 50% of Americans live in the nine most populous states (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PN, OH, MI, GA) but only get 18 senators. The nine least populous states, making up only 2.5% of the population, also get 18 senators.

So it makes sense half the people get 18% representation, the other half get 82%, of which 18% of this total is claimed by 2.5% of the population, just because of where they live? I get it, state sovereignty and all that, but the senate made much more sense in an era when the United States was much more federal (it still is, but it's unlikely that we'll see states go to war nowadays), and today has become a decrepit dinosaur that has been distorted by population disparities between the states that the founding fathers could not have anticipated. It was mostly made to appease the South, which at the time also had sparse rural populations but a lot of money (aha).

The senate has been a roadblock on almost every important issue, from decreasing agricultural subsidies to gun law and healthcare reform, things which a majority of Americans support. But because a majority of Americans live in concentrated areas in certain states, it makes sense that their desires deserve to be relegated below those of rural populations? The bicameral system doesn't solve this, because the senate still has full veto power over the house (and is far more often the one to exercise it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So it makes sense half the people get 18% representation, the other half get 82%, of which 18% of this total is claimed by 2.5% of the population, just because of where they live?
Well, yeah, exactly. A lot of what you see as a flaw is in fact the precise purpose for why the Senate exists. Why would it be a good thing for larger states to get more power?
I get it, state sovereignty and all that, but the senate made much more sense in an era when the United States was much more federal (it still is, but it's unlikely that we'll see states go to war nowadays)
Perhaps we should return to a more federal system, then, rather than piling a second usurpation of power on top of a first?
and today has become a decrepit dinosaur that has been distorted by population disparities between the states that the founding fathers could not have anticipated.
Because there definitely weren't population disparities between Rhode Island and Virginia back in the 18th century!
The senate has been a roadblock on almost every important issue, from decreasing agricultural subsidies to gun law and healthcare reform, things which a majority of Americans support.
This is a problem because?
But because a majority of Americans live in concentrated areas in certain states, it makes sense that their desires deserve to be relegated below those of rural populations?
O NOES FARMERS MAKE IS SO WE CAN'T DO WHAT WE WANT

And yes, it does. I'm not sure what good it would necessarily do us to concentrate even more political power than that which already is.

(For the record, I live in Texas.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The senate has been a roadblock on almost every important issue, from decreasing agricultural subsidies to gun law and healthcare reform, things which a majority of Americans support. But because a majority of Americans live in concentrated areas in certain states, it makes sense that their desires deserve to be relegated below those of rural populations? The bicameral system doesn't solve this, because the senate still has full veto power over the house (and is far more often the one to exercise it).

So it makes sense half the people get 18% representation, the other half get 82%, of which 18% of this total is claimed by 2.5% of the population, just because of where they live? I get it, state sovereignty and all that, but the senate made much more sense in an era when the United States was much more federal (it still is, but it's unlikely that we'll see states go to war nowadays), and today has become a decrepit dinosaur that has been distorted by population disparities between the states that the founding fathers could not have anticipated. It was mostly made to appease the South, which at the time also had sparse rural populations but a lot of money (aha).

Excuse my generalization here but here's an analogy: Wyomingite is to Californian as miners is to urban dwellers. Both the miner and the urban dweller are regular people just like you and me but with widely different beliefs on issues. But because there are more urban dwellers, that should be the reason that they can consistently trample over miners' interests? No matter how lopsided the ratio is between those two groups, those two groups exist and to be fair to both groups, tyranny of the majority must be eliminated, which is the reason the Senate exists. And it is not like the Senate overpowers the House since they too can also veto the Senate's actions so tyranny of the minority is non-existent as well.

Also, last time I checked, the House still supports agricultural subsidies with the passage of The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, gun control laws are unconstitutional, and the only real controversial action that the Senate did in the health care reform was getting rid of the fairly useless public option. However, it is true that the Senate is generally more conservative (and it is their job to be more conservative) than the House but there must be a check on popular power.

In the same vein, should we get rid of the veto? And judicial review?

Edited by Divine Hero Nguyen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The senate has been a roadblock on almost every important issue, from decreasing agricultural subsidies to gun law and healthcare reform, things which a majority of Americans support. But because a majority of Americans live in concentrated areas in certain states, it makes sense that their desires deserve to be relegated below those of rural populations? The bicameral system doesn't solve this, because the senate still has full veto power over the house (and is far more often the one to exercise it).

It's also a roadblock to prevent stupid things from getting passed. I shudder to think of what would take place if the house did everything. Not to mention removing the senate in many senses still doesn't achieve exactly equal representation per person ideal that some have. An ideal that I'd argue is actually bad. Strongly majority-based rule often screw things up. I'd much prefer that rather than increase the federal government's power in some vain hope of advancing important issues "which a majority of Americans support" (a notion that is pretty vague and pointless; poll fluctuations are quite high on an even monthly basis and answers can be manipulated by how you phrase the question), that more things were simply left to the states (as was intended originally).

If America would go unicameral, the only way it wouldn't be insane would be to merge some of the qualities of the senate and the house together into a completely new congress (basically rewriting large portions of the constitution). And even then, I wouldn't support such a scheme barring incredibly good reasons, planning, and execution. Which I don't see happening given the moral, ethical, and intellectual grounding and level of the average politician and citizen of the U.S.

God knows the only thing preventing runaway stupidity in some cases is the supreme court which has unelected justices who serve essentially for life. I'd hate to see all the people with 6 year terms who represent entire states being replaced by a bunch of 2-year term politicians whose primary motivation is to pander to the lowest common denominator in their district in order to get re-elected.

Edited by quanta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends. If the issue is going to affect everybody, and it's in favor of the small states, the smaller states should be given a power in proportion to their population. If the issue is in favor of the smaller states, and won't affect anyone but them, then they should be given equal representation. However, that brings up the case in which the issue affects everybody, but is just downright unfair to the smaller states. In that situation, I think there should be a sort of panel of judges to decide if that is the case, and if it is, give the smaller states equal representation. Those are just my thoughts though, and this will never happen as it would require a major reconstruction of the government. And hey, if I can't even run an internet forum, what do I know about government?

Uhhh, that is why we have a bicameral Congress. For legislation to go though, the bill need the approval of BOTH houses so that it is fair to both large and small states. You guys make it sound like one house controls the other.

No. What I suggested is different in that it doesn't need to be approved by both. The choice of which house it needs to be approved by would be left up to a collection of judges. My reasoning for this? Making it need to be approved by both creates massive holdups in government. Sure, the small states might all agree on something, so in one house they can win, but then the larger states might be completely against it, and win in the other house, therefore slowing things to a grinding halt. That's the problem with our bicameral system.

Also, this:

If America would go unicameral, the only way it wouldn't be insane would be to merge some of the qualities of the senate and the house together into a completely new congress (basically rewriting large portions of the constitution). And even then, I wouldn't support such a scheme barring incredibly good reasons, planning, and execution. Which I don't see happening given the moral, ethical, and intellectual grounding and level of the average politician and citizen of the U.S.

Bicameral is necessary, no matter what the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, uh, in Canada, at the national level, we have a House of Commons, and a Senate. Our House of Commons is regionally representative, with approximately 1 Member per 100,000 Canadians. Our Senate is appointed as opposed to elected, and basically has a very wacky layout. Our Senate cannot create bills or anything, they simply have de juri power to vote on them after the House of Commons has passed them. It's pretty much just ceremonial, because they mostly know that they cannot go against the will of the people, but they technically have the power.

Ours works pretty well. On the other hand, we have several parties that are always vying for control of our government, and we currently enjoy a minority government, so your results may vary. Quite a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, uh, in Canada, at the national level, we have a House of Commons, and a Senate. Our House of Commons is regionally representative, with approximately 1 Member per 100,000 Canadians. Our Senate is appointed as opposed to elected, and basically has a very wacky layout. Our Senate cannot create bills or anything, they simply have de juri power to vote on them after the House of Commons has passed them. It's pretty much just ceremonial, because they mostly know that they cannot go against the will of the people, but they technically have the power.

Ours works pretty well. On the other hand, we have several parties that are always vying for control of our government, and we currently enjoy a minority government, so your results may vary. Quite a bit.

Yeah, but doesn't Canada hold elections randomly, whenever people finally decide they're sick of the current governement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada: The American Jr. Dead srs.

Anyway, the only problem with getting rid of the Senate would be the little-states-that-we-don't-really-care-about-but-whatever-right? don't get the representation they "deserve". The Senate is there to balance such as system, but even I disagree with some of its logic. Then again most of Congress is twice as retarded since there are a bunch of new people every two years compared to the Senate's 8.

In my opinion get rid of the trash that is NAFTA and we'll get somewhere.

Edited by Colonel M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion get rid of the trash that is NAFTA and we'll get somewhere.

What the hell could NAFTA possibly have to do with the topic at hand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion get rid of the trash that is NAFTA and we'll get somewhere.

What the hell could NAFTA possibly have to do with the topic at hand?

Fixing the country. Ever notice that we don't put tarrifs on items but everyone else puts tarrifs on our products? That's called hurting our economy even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, uh, in Canada, at the national level, we have a House of Commons, and a Senate. Our House of Commons is regionally representative, with approximately 1 Member per 100,000 Canadians. Our Senate is appointed as opposed to elected, and basically has a very wacky layout. Our Senate cannot create bills or anything, they simply have de juri power to vote on them after the House of Commons has passed them. It's pretty much just ceremonial, because they mostly know that they cannot go against the will of the people, but they technically have the power.

Ours works pretty well. On the other hand, we have several parties that are always vying for control of our government, and we currently enjoy a minority government, so your results may vary. Quite a bit.

Yeah, but doesn't Canada hold elections randomly, whenever people finally decide they're sick of the current governement?

Well, we hold elections whenever the Government calls an election. Note that this MUST happen within 5 years of being elected to office, but in a minority government, it happens about once every 2 years. Even in a majority it's usually once every 4 years, because the election is usually called when the ruling party think they still have a lot of public support.

In my opinion get rid of the trash that is NAFTA and we'll get somewhere.

What the hell could NAFTA possibly have to do with the topic at hand?

Fixing the country. Ever notice that we don't put tarrifs on items but everyone else puts tarrifs on our products? That's called hurting our economy even more.

wut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty I love this country probably more than anyone here, and I will be the first to point out its major flaws

Most important thing imo is to slowly stop producing in other places and begin to produce here again, this way we will be less dependent on other countries and help out American companies.

Best part of that is too detach ourselves from China, without us China is nothing but a bunch of people with half ass tech. With our dependency on them they can grow their economy to a point were we need them and they don't need us. I in no way think China will be a super power as everyone thinks, but its better to have them in check just in case.

Aside from that something at home has been bothering me

Alot of useless trash is coming into this country I live in miami and you should see the useless low class loser who come from south American and Cuba. On the other side there are many people who do come from thoes places who do contribute to society in more ways than none. That really needs to be fixed, on the other side citizenship has faults too. Have a friend not born here of good class and a nice guy, he left to DR since he and his parents couldn't stay. They came legally and all. They are still waiting for papers. So something needs to be done to balance all of that, I'm no politician and I have no knowledge of policies to fix this, but it should be fixed.

And this Gay people shit has to stop. They should be allowed to marry and they should have the same damn rights as everyone. I don't care if its unjust thats not anyones call to make so for realz :P

Other than that I think my country is doing a pretty damn good job

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty I love this country probably more than anyone here, and I will be the first to point out its major flaws

Most important thing imo is to slowly stop producing in other places and begin to produce here again, this way we will be less dependent on other countries and help out American companies.

Best part of that is too detach ourselves from China, without us China is nothing but a bunch of people with half ass tech. With our dependency on them they can grow their economy to a point were we need them and they don't need us. I in no way think China will be a super power as everyone thinks, but its better to have them in check just in case.

Globalization should be stressed to continue. If we start to raise tariffs, and lower quotas that means that other countries will be doing the same thing. That means our annual export values will drop even lower.

Uh, not quite. China, unlike us, is investing. Who knows, maybe they will start to develop a stronger military in the future. Not to mention they don't have a tremendous debt.

Today the US still remains to be the only superpower. We are not entirely dependent on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have a friend not born here of good class and a nice guy, he left to DR since he and his parents couldn't stay. They came legally and all. They are still waiting for papers. So something needs to be done to balance all of that, I'm no politician and I have no knowledge of policies to fix this, but it should be fixed.

You may want to let your friend know that he is a legal citizen of the United States. If I'm correct, he is even a natural born citizen.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_citizenship:

Birth within the United States

Main article: Birthright citizenship in the United States of America

Main article: Jus soli

The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[3] although it has generally been assumed that they are.[4] A birth certificate issued by a U.S. state or territorial government is evidence of citizenship, and is usually accepted as proof of citizenship. This differs from most western nations[citation needed]; countries of the European Union which awarded citizenship to children born there (such as Ireland until 31 December 2005) closed this possibility.

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

* is born in the United States

* of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power

* whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States

* whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said he wasn't born here -_-

and to Snaaaaaaaake

idk much as I hate to admit it we are a little dependent on them since they buy the bulk of stuff from us, I'm not an expert on chinese american relation so I could be wrong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said he wasn't born here -_-

and to Snaaaaaaaake

idk much as I hate to admit it we are a little dependent on them since they buy the bulk of stuff from us, I'm not an expert on chinese american relation so I could be wrong

Ah. Stupid me then. Continue on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said he wasn't born here -_-

and to Snaaaaaaaake

idk much as I hate to admit it we are a little dependent on them since they buy the bulk of stuff from us, I'm not an expert on chinese american relation so I could be wrong

If you want to get right down to it, we should be dependent on any country that sends us imports. I believe in some of Colbert's beliefs (look him up. He's the economical genius for Louis XIV of France); mainly the belief of never importing anything we already have here. With the exception of oil, we import cheap toys, et cetera. According to Colbert, we shouldn't do that. Ideas like that I agree with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said he wasn't born here -_-

and to Snaaaaaaaake

idk much as I hate to admit it we are a little dependent on them since they buy the bulk of stuff from us, I'm not an expert on chinese american relation so I could be wrong

If you want to get right down to it, we should be dependent on any country that sends us imports. I believe in some of Colbert's beliefs (look him up. He's the economical genius for Louis XIV of France); mainly the belief of never importing anything we already have here. With the exception of oil, we import cheap toys, et cetera. According to Colbert, we shouldn't do that. Ideas like that I agree with.

On the other hand, when you do that you can sometimes alienate your trading partners. I can tell you that Canada didn't particularly feel good about the whole soft wood lumber debacle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...