Jump to content

Brutus_buckeye

One World Trade Center 1,776'
  • Content Count

    3,578
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    He is welcome to his opinion and his own point of view
  2. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    ^ Fairness depends on your perspective and point of view. In some ways it is very fair.
  3. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    ^ Exactly, I sense a lot of frustration from those who feel the Senate does not act in their interest stems from the House situation. Gerrymandering being one example and the fact that the country is so big now that each Congressman does not adequately represent the population they need. Expanding the house is much more reasonable of a solution than changing the Senate
  4. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    Well the numbers you use in your hypo are a bit unrealistic, but to answer your question. I do not think that population should come into play in the Senate. Each State gets equal representation. The House is the body that has proportional representation and is designed to ensure the larger states have more influence. The fact it takes both houses to pass a bill is important to making the system work. I say this because by design, the House is there to represent the will of the people on the ground. It is why they have smaller districts and designed to proportionally represent the population (this is the area where I feel your argument has merit for reform). The Senate was never designed to function as that type of body. It is there to represent the state interest. It is why as originally crafted, voters did not directly elect Senators. WIth this in mind, I do not feel the Senate is broken and does not need to fixed and it works as it was intended to work. I hope this answers your question.
  5. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    I don't think you can naturally say that in today's society, the founders would not reach a different conclusion. To your point, does the discrepancy between CA and WY populations equate to a larger percentage than say DE and VA in the 1700s, of course. Now, logically speaking, it may cause pause for certain large states such as CA to agree to such a proposal today, but it also might not. Neither you or I can really confirm this for certain. However, if you look at the nature of compromise and getting a majority to agree on a provision, you are still likely to have the majority agree so such a compromise to the detriment of CA, NY, TX, FL, PA, IL, OH because it would create the benefit for the most states. Here is where your Senate argument fails. You seem stuck on the concept of 10% of the population choosing 98% of the Senate. The Senate is never about population, it is about States as members of the Republic. You are caught up in the fact that the Senate should represent a portion of population, and that is not what it does. Senators are not independent bodies going off to represent the Country and the Country''s interests. They are by design, solely there to represent the interest of their state. Just because more people live in California does not make it more important than say Wyoming or Alaska in the eyes of the Senate. This is by design. The Senate is more akin to the UN, where each independent state has an equal voice in matters that affect their interest as well as national interests,
  6. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    ^ you are thinking about it the wrong way. You are using the logic for the House and applying it to the Senate. If you want to argue that seats in the House are not proportional enough and there should be more than 435 seats, that is one thing, but the Senate was never meant to function like this. The Senate is functioning how the founders intended 200 yeas ago. Fact is, the point of the Senate was to be an egalitarian body where Wyoming and California would have the same influence. That was the whole point of the great compromise. It did not matter the difference in population, Senators stood on equal footing and represented their states. Each state had 2 Senators because it was important to have more than one voice in the chamber for each state. It helped to foster compromise and collegiality.
  7. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    Your argument is comical. You act like the vast majority of the Constitutional Convention was unanimous. Far from it. Things came to where they were based on majority vote and then everyone accepted that and moved on. This debate was a great compromise by the parties. It was not unanimous and never was going to be. When people use the Founding Fathers claim, they are saying that is what the majority intended things to be at that time. That does not say unanimity, it says majority intent. It is easier to add books tot he Bible than it is to amend the Constitution.
  8. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    The people who are crying foul that the Senate is unjust because it allocates seats equally amongst states vs proportionally tend to lean left. Yes. The fact that the founding fathers were not in unanimity of this issue 240 years ago is pointless. The system that gained the most support is what we have now so to argue it should be blown up is pointless.
  9. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    ^ what is your point?
  10. Brutus_buckeye

    SCOTUS

    While he was not personally my first choice, he was very qualified. Is he as libertarian as say Scalia or even Gorsuch, probably not. However, I do think he would be closer to a Gorsuch than say an Alito on the court. As mentioned, one of the key cases conservatives loathe is the Chevron case, which essentially allows federal agencies and the executive branch to consolidate power without Congressional approval (they may obviously check an overreach but passing legislation is difficult). Would someone like Kavanaugh who would tend to disagree with Chevron (and I have not read him close enough to know this) rule on a case that gives Trump's actions cover, solely as payback for the nomination, while at the same time create precedent that he would otherwise seek to avoid. Logically, I cant see this. While I am sure he appreciates Trump selecting him to the Court, he has a lifetime appointment and therefore, is not beholden to Trump in anyway and does not need to answer to him. He is completely independent. I do not think the Justices, any Justice acts as a Quid Pro Quo to protect any administration in matters where their judicial philosophy does not necessarily agree with the administration.
  11. Brutus_buckeye

    Cincinnati City Council

    ^ Seelbach is an a$$ who is completely full of himself. no doubt he is doing this to get attention
  12. Brutus_buckeye

    SCOTUS

    If you look at most conservative jurisprudence, most conservative justices in the vein of Scalia and Kennedy tended to be more libertarian leaning than big government. Many conservatives loathe the Chevron decision from years ago so I don't think many picks would be in the mold to hold up something that grants wide executive power just because it would protect Trump.
  13. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    ^ I don't know, I am far from an expert on Canadian law and how their Republic is organized. In many cases, the provincial form of government leads to a strong national government and less autonomy on the local level between the provinces. While provincial leaders and local leaders have authority over local matters, from what I have always understood is that their power was always at the will of the National government vs in the US the states have a lot of autonomy and individual authority that the Federal Government does not have. Again, please take this at face value here because I am far from most knowledgeable on Canadian Law.
  14. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    If you are referring to the 27th amendment passed in 1992 then yes, that is correct. although it pretty much gained traction in the 80s after a few congressional pay raises brought it to the public attention and a eager college student/legislative aide pushing the issue
  15. Brutus_buckeye

    Voting

    ^ I do understand what you are saying. I don't necessarily think the system is broken or has evolved to the level you are advocating. Yes, there is tension, but again there is a benefit to having equal representation in the Senate. It fosters dialogue and compromise between large and small states who may have different interests. As much as the party machines control the process for large profile bills, there are many lower profile bills that are just as important that impact large and small states differently. The Constitution is designed to be extremely difficult to change for reasons such as this. It is no mistake that there has only been one amendment passed in your lifetime (assuming you graduated college in 2010).
×