interstate healthcare system… clinics at stuckeys?
I agree. We would be much better off if the political party that gets fewer votes would stop rigging the system to entrench themselves into power.
I think the old Soviet mantra that we’ll fall like a ripe plum from within, will turn out to be true.
We’re seeing signs of it now.
Sorry, it’s early and had a late night.
Why was it FAIR back at the founding and unfari torday. Specific examples.
It was necessary in order to ratify the constitution. For the time… it was a fair compromise. Just like the 3/5th compromise was fair for the time.
Now we have an additional 37 states. A state like California that is 70x larger in population size than Wyoming. The scale makes things different now.
Gerrymandering? Legal. But the shrinking minority wants to change that too. I’m sensing a trend.
Oh… I get it… you are pretending that the GOP isn’t a shrinking minority.
It makes sense now.
It still requires 3/4 of the states for a constitutional amendment, so smaller states do have that bit of protection.
It’s two different things.
From a political standpoint many of the smaller states are dominating the larger states.
From a cultural and social standpoint the large states are running over the smaller states.
Both sides are making unreasonable demands on the other.
What do you mean here? Socially what unreasonable demands are large states putting on the small?
I think it’s actually 100% of all states need to agree to a change.
Nope.
Many of the small states’ populations are more rural, filled with rural people. The priorities are different.
The anti-firearm groups, for example, anger rural people, myself among them. Socially we have to contend with media that is inherently biased against our views as gun owners, media mostly crafted in the large population states who’s views on firearms differ greatly from our own.
That’s just one example.
There are cultural issues at play.
There are 131 House bills currently being held by the Republican leadership without prospect of debate or vote.
They present 131 refutations of your post.
I think that that is an unfair projection.
The majority of people in this country do not want to ban firearms or take away guns.
There is a deep frustration though over the conversation that includes reforms that the majority of the population agree with but no political headway can be made for one reason or another.
The senate is a complete ■■■■ show.
It was intended to be a replacement for the English House of Lords. The individual states, who mostly represented the more affluent land owners, were a stand in for the hereditary lords of the English system.
The House was meant to represent the views and the passions of the common working man, the proletariat, although that term didn’t exist just yet at the time.
The idea was to keep the proletariat from destroying the wealthy through weight of numbers and to keep the wealthy from infringing on the social and political rights of the proletariat through their ownership of capital.
It was a genius compromise.
Unfortunately the people who came after weren’t satisfied.
2 Likes
No many of them just want more restrictions above what has already been tolerated and accepted.
Not all change is good or just.
3/4 of the states, not 100%, is needed to pass an amendment to the Constitution.
The thing is that the longer the issue drags on without even considering implementing reforms that the majority agree with, the more radical the proposals will become.
This is one of the reasons I hate getting into a debate about firearms because I do believe in the right to self defense, but there is an interest of the State to secure the citizenry as a whole from people who would misuse that right and that compromise makes no one happy.
100% agreed. They are not equal.
