People are looking at this the wrong way

[Ben_Natuf]

stop lying about me. Period. You know nothing about me.

[Ben_Natuf]

Yes, it tells me I believe and have confidence in my own conclusions.

The constitution was a compact between 3 entities, the people, the states and the federal government. The states gave up certain authorities to the federal government and put an institution in place so that their voice could be heard in the federal government and was required to do those things states had previously had soveriegnity over (treaties, judges, ambassadors etc.)

With the passage of the 17th the states lost that voice and were cut out of the compact. My belief has nothing to do with the history of the Senate, the history of the 17th, or whether or not it worked as it was designed to. It has to do with one thing and one thing only, restoration of a voice for state legislatures in the federal government (no matter how effective or ineffective it might prove). That at least gives a chance that federal encroachments may slow.

[Ben_Natuf]

now, as to those who claim Joe would not sign the legislation, by what logic can you conclude that? any application of reasoning leads to the conclusion he will.

[JayJay]

@Ben_Natuf

Yes, it tells me I believe and have confidence in my own conclusions.

The constitution was a compact between 3 entities, the people, the states and the federal government. The states gave up certain authorities to the federal government and put an institution in place so that their voice could be heard in the federal government and was required to do those things states had previously had soveriegnity over (treaties, judges, ambassadors etc.)

With the passage of the 17th the states lost that voice and were cut out of the compact. My belief has nothing to do with the history of the Senate, the history of the 17th, or whether or not it worked as it was designed to. It has to do with one thing and one thing only, restoration of a voice for state legislatures in the federal government (no matter how effective or ineffective it might prove). That at least gives a chance that federal encroachments may slow.

The states lost nothing. They still have that power through their senators…who many times when laws are passed craft special exemptions for their states or make sure their states are heard.

“State legislature” does not equal “state”.

[Ben_Natuf]

■■■■■■■■

[WuWei]

@tzu

That is, I have always argued, a misread.

Then you are incorrect.

[WuWei]

It was however, more focused on the business of the Senate.

[WuWei]

@tzu

That does not matter.

What matters is that the electorate isn’t buying it.

Which does not matter.

[Samson_Corwell]

@Ben_Natuf

and none of it changes one iota the fact that the only voice the states had in the federal government (no matter how ineffective of effective) was in the Senate. The states now have NO voice in the federal government and there is nothing to slow or thwart federal encroachments other than the courts which are beholden to the Senate.

Being elected by the people of a state isn’t the voice of that state???

[WuWei]

@tzu

A singular flaw of our model is the permanence of the centralizing trend, and this is an original(ist) error. The Constitution, being overly and overtly Roman, guarantees it.

@tzu

No, they chose who had federal power in the Senate, which very clearly did nothing to counter the centralizing trend written into the Constitution.

I will agree there was a centralizing trend written into the Constitution by one faction.

There were also decentralizing checks insisted on by the other faction and included. Which are routinely ignored.

The excuse was handed them on a silver platter in 1858 and the “correction” continues to this day.

It is a plain and simple imposition of values using force of government by zealots. And it will ultimately lead to the dissolution of the non-united states.

[WuWei]

No, it is not.

[WuWei]

Irrelevant, that is precisely why advise and consent resides in the Senate, not the House or both.

[WuWei]

@tzu

JP Morgan (og) resolutely disagrees. Not that I don’t know you’ll be trying to gallop-fill rationalizations and lampshading, going forward.

No, he doesn’t disagree. You start in the middle.

[WuWei]

@Ben_Natuf

why would I care what JP Morgan thinks? Appeals to authority do not impress.

Because he and his friends corrupted the Senate before ratification of the 17th.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

And Tzu’s read of the seeds of centralization having been built into the Constitution is the correct read.

While conveniently ignoring the checks.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

It was a thing decades in the making in response to very serious corruption, inaction, and special interest domination of the Senate (via easy domination of the state legislatures that chose them).

A knee-jerk response that did not address the issue at all and ignores the populism that drove it.

Corruption, special interests? As opposed to today and ignoring the additional problems it caused.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

You do get your history from groupthink centralized organizations.

You don’t?

[WuWei]

@JayJay

Add that to the fact your read on how the 17th Amendment came to be is simply wrong, and I doubly know you get it from “centralized, groupthink organizations”.

You do realize your read comes from the opposite faction and is no less “wrong”?

[WuWei]

@Samson_Corwell

@Ben_Natuf

and none of it changes one iota the fact that the only voice the states had in the federal government (no matter how ineffective of effective) was in the Senate. The states now have NO voice in the federal government and there is nothing to slow or thwart federal encroachments other than the courts which are beholden to the Senate.

Being elected by the people of a state isn’t the voice of that state???

No, it isn’t. It is the voice of 51% of the population residing in that state with an address and not voting in any other state.

[WuWei]

So easy to ignore the true federalists in favor of the tyrants led by Hamilton.

For those who may not understand what is being referenced by “centralizing effect”, it is a fancy term for “grabbing power”, was warned about throughout the process and was the prime motivator for the Bill of Rights.

The claim is now that it was intended and “written in”; which is true, by one faction. The faction which lied about intentions every step of the way, including the very intent of the first convention before a single delegate showed up.

In order to rationalize it, we have to forget about the other faction, the one that gave us the Bill of Rights. The rights that are continuously being attacked and eroded intentionally.

The goal is simple; impose their value system on the rest of the nations by force of government. Their cause is just. They will lead us into the light.