You're viewing a single thread.
Income tax and senate are important.
Fuck the Senate and giving representation unequally.
Why the fuck do CA and WY get the same representation in the Senate other than because some old slave owners pitched a fit about not having power over more populated states.
The Senate makes sense under two circumstances:
- The US is a confederation, with the majority of the sovereignty resting with individual states rather than the Federal government, and
- Senators are appointed by state legislatures and not directly elected, giving them a meaningfully different constituency and perspective than House reps.
Those circumstances existed when the Senate was initially conceived of by the founding fathers, but no longer do.
How does that make the Senate important?
That is why the House exists.
some old slave owners pitched a fit about not having power over more populated states.
You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone.
The House prevents all of the red states from getting together and patently overruling California.
The Senate prevents the entire country being ruled by California.
Only through striking balance through both checks can a law that impacts everyone be advanced.
The system is build the way it is built for a reason.
California can pass all the state legislation it wants. It needs to get a bill through both house and senate to impose their will on the other 49 states.
If anything, the idea of the House of Representatives at a FEDERAL level is the stupid one.
If we got rid of the Senate, we should just change the name of the country to The United State of California.
You're literally arguing that people shouldn't get equal representation because you think land votes.
I'm literally not.
I'm saying checks and balances should exist because we are a country of states with different environments, different hardships, and different cultures, not a country of Californians.
Checks and balances that give inequality. Lol
Okay, one more go at trying to teach Civics 101 to the one who cant walk and chew bubblegum at the same time.
So 1 state having all the power is equality?
In your mind, equal = Californian?
1 large homogenized (probably too big a world for you, but you can google) population has the right to rule over every other population?
49 groups of people get overruled because 1 of the groups has more people?
That is why checks and balances are in place. To ensure EVERYONE gets representation, not just one powerful group.
Each state does have States rights though, so they can do as they please with their group. Unless it is something that has successfully made it through checks and balances to be enforced on the nation as a whole.
EVERYONE should be represented at the Federal level, not just the majority group.
With your throwing around of the topic of slavery earlier in the conversation, I'd think you would be for that.
So Californians should just live in Wyoming to get represented?
Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state.
They just cant steam roll the other 49 states in the Federal legislative branch because the Senate protects those 49 states from California, the state with the most legislative representation in America.
Seriously dude, shut your mouth and read a book.
They have the least representation per capita
Californians are the only people in America that have more representation than someone in any other state.
This is false. They are extremely under represented in the Senate, and the House scales with population.
You are aware that when Congress as a whole was established, everyone owned slaves. Everyone.
Not even remotely true. Slaves were very expensive and only rich people could afford to buy and own slaves. Or did you mean everyone who established Congress?
I meant everyone who established Congress.
Congress didn't get established as it is by a slave owning south to the chagrin of the not-slave-owning-north.
Slavery was only ever (very rightfully) addressed far after.
That was the point I was making.
Gotcha. Then yes, all of the forefathers were rich enough to own slaves and did so.