I just had a political epiphany.

sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior MemberPosts: 1,610 Senior Member
The USA Senate and House of Representatives create laws which apply to all citizens of the USA but are elected by their states. How fair is that? Why are they not elected by every registered voter in the USA? This is the article that made me actually think!

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/murphy-no-one-is-safe-until-congress-acts-on-gun-violence/ar-AAutOeu?li=BBnb7Kz

Replies

  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,106 Senior Member
    IF the 17th Amendment had never been ratified, the states would still hold the state's rights that controlled their Senators in Congress, and had the senators at the state's beck and call rather than Washington, D.C. One of the worst amendments ever passed by the states; they cut their own throats, knowingly or otherwise. A repeal of the 17th amendment would be a boon to states rights, and a hard brake on the House and their shenanigans.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,536 Senior Member
    sgtrock21 wrote: »
    The USA Senate and House of Representatives create laws which apply to all citizens of the USA but are elected by their states. How fair is that? Why are they not elected by every registered voter in the USA? This is the article that made me actually think!

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/murphy-no-one-is-safe-until-congress-acts-on-gun-violence/ar-AAutOeu?li=BBnb7Kz

    It is about as fair as it can get, We live in a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC,key word representative. We send people to DC to represent us. As to the Senate, if the 17th was eliminated (as it should be) then the states (not people) would have a say. I think that would do away with a lot of the senate silliness as in them trying to represent constituents and get elected. You would cut a huge percentage of campaign dollars out also as they should be appointed by the states. Dems will appoint Dems, Reps will appoint Reps, but since it is a 6 year term, in states that fluctuate, the balance will remain.

    What you are suggesting is closer to a direct democracy, AKA the tyranny of the population centers. About the same thing as doing away with the electoral college.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,658 Senior Member
    ^THIS^

    The last thing I want is the people of NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, LA, or Philadelphia choosing the persons who will represent my interests. The 'rural outposts' in this country are the only places where the "American Experiment' still functions properly.

    Packing people together like sardines, opening the borders, and teaching everyone to rely on the government for their well-being is a prescription for chaos. A powerful central government that would be elected by the dense population centers will diminish this country to a banana republic within a couple of decades, if not countered vigorously. It is plain for anybody to see, by simply looking at the problems in those cities, which are basically coming apart at the seams, due to arrogant self-styled intellectuals who make it all possible by intentionally misdiagnosing the problems, and selling BS to an increasingly ignorant voter pool.
  • SkolnickSkolnick Member Posts: 47 Member
    sgtrock21 wrote: »
    The USA Senate and House of Representatives create laws which apply to all citizens of the USA but are elected by their states. How fair is that?

    Don't forget, they envisioned a WEAK federal government with just a few enumerated powers.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.