Re: Facebook Account

On 11/5/2024 1:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/5/2024 11:28 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 11/5/2024 12:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/5/2024 10:53 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 11/5/2024 10:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/5/2024 8:47 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:

On 11/5/2024 9:32 AM, AMuzi wrote:

On 11/4/2024 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 11/4/2024 7:07 PM, Shadow wrote:

>
>
    "But it's in the Constitution" - just saying that lowers the
score. The World has changed a LOT in over 100 years, and laws need to
change to accompany that.

>
I occasionally encounter people who treat the U.S. Constitution as perfection itself, and as a holy document That Must Never Be Criticized.
>
But despite its revisions (AKA amendments) I think it's got serious flaws. As evidence, there are now hundreds of nations with constitutions. Not one has duplicated the U.S. Constitution. All have at least attempted to improve on it.
>
>

>
With mixed success. I give you the overwhelmingly adopted 18th Amendment, the only one more destructive than the 17th.
>
Change for its own sake is not always positive.
>

>
An amendment defining the structure of the senate is the 2nd most destructive?
>
>
>

>
It removed the State legislatures from the process. That's a big change, as reflected by candidates' positions and campaign strategies and of course who is elected.

>
Wait, so you're saying the state legislatures should have the exclusive authority to appoint senators, regardless of the will of the people?
>
I'm having difficulty seeing how the people electing senators is "destructive".
>

>
For the same reason that pattern and practice of elections is the sole plenary duty of the legislature, not referenda, not by one official elected or appointed.
>
The Framers preferred a deliberative process for many decisions (by no means all) and we differ, as much now as then, about where those lines should be drawn.
>

>
So why then don't we just have the president selected by the congress? Fuck what the people actually want.
>

 Scary thought, which may be more pertinent than you think.
 Rather than a popular vote, Presidential Electors are roughly proportioned by population, roughly because each State also gets two automatically besides the number of Congressional seats.
 In the unlikely event that Electors are tied, the vote goes to the House with each State contributing one vote. Yep, Wyoming's opinion has equal weight to California.  This has actually happened and provoked a deluge of money, power extortion and bribery from many quarters to deny President Tilden the office.  Let's not see a replay!
 Back to your comment, the pith is in the final clause. Which people, exactly? A popular vote would overly weigh the influence of Virginia (then; now it would be California) and campaigns would easily ignore Rhode Island ((then and now; plus Wyoming) altogether.
  The document was not dashed off in haste. It's complex for good reasons then, which may or may not suit all readers today.

Which brings us back to the question - how is the 17th amendment "destructive"? Certainly from a federalist perspective it's the opposite. From a populist perspective it's helpful to have the structure defined in the context of the popular vote rather than rely on the individual states legislative/executive whims (and corruption).
I get it, you see any demands from the federal government on the states as overreach. I prefer more structure; I don't have a problem with it.
--
Add xx to reply