4 ms·

States are just a collection of individuals. Laws are made by human beings, not land. House: Californians and Wyomingans are equal. Senate: Wyomingans are 48

by bluthru 11y ago

States are just a collection of individuals. Laws are made by human beings, not land. House: Californians and Wyomingans are equal. Senate: Wyomingans are 48 times more important than Californians. It doesn't balance out. If you're ok with the senate giving greater influence to low-populated areas, would you be ok with giving rural voters a larger vote weight than urban people when electing a senator? It's contradictory to vote for senators by using "1 person 1 vote" who then do not proportionally represent the population.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
> States are just a collection of individuals. No. States actually have rights, not just individuals. There's a difference between a federation and a unitary state, and federation was considered a good idea. (Short summary: any power can become a tyranny, so keep other powers around to counter the national government.) > Laws are made by human beings, not land. Nobody ever said that laws were made by land. But laws are made by states, not just by individuals. > It's contradictory to vote for senators by using "1 person 1 vote" who then do not proportionally represent the population. Only if you hold the mistaken idea that senators represent people rather than states. They don't, and they shouldn't.
- bluthru 11y ago
  >States actually have rights, not just individuals States are arbitrary and given rights by individuals. States cannot feel the effects of any law. States are not citizens. >(Short summary: any power can become a tyranny, so keep other powers around to counter the national government.) That's a comforting idea in the abstract, but when applied it basically means people in rural areas should have more say in the national government than people in urban areas. You're literally in favor of taking power away from people and giving it to others. You're for tyranny of the rural rather than people being treated equally. In the age of telecommunication it makes even less sense. We're not the EU. The idea that the US is a collection of countries went out the window a long, long time ago. Federal laws have a much bigger effect on people than state laws. The Senate is the only place where people are not proportionally represented. To argue for it is to say that people are not equal, and that states are more important than people, which flies in the face of democracy. EDIT: To address your point below, you're in favor of taking away power from some and giving it to others based on population density. This is a horrible idea since our cities are where our most educated and most productive live.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    > You're literally in favor of taking power away from people and giving it to others. Absolutely. For the exact same reason that we don't live in a democracy. It's a feature, not a bug. I mean, by your argument, why have a House or a Senate? We've got telecommunications, just have a vote. Direct democracy. Why not? Well, that turns out historically to be a really bad idea. But anything short of it is "taking power away from people and giving it to others", in one form or another.
douche 11y ago
Senators are not supposed to be directly elected. Nor are income taxes supposed to be constitutional. Fortunately, we gave up banning the production and sale of alcohol as a bad job, but these other two perverse amendments from a hundred years ago have yet to be repealed.
- jcranmer 11y ago
  Fun fact: the 16th Amendment does not mean what you think it means. It was written in response to the Pollock decision, which said that a tax on income derived from property was in essence a property tax. Hence why the amendment explicitly refers to "incomes, from whatever source derived." Income taxes were, even at the time, considered constitutional (and were in fact in effect for decades prior). Indeed, the Pollock decision was later overturned, so one might say that the 16th amendment is one of the more useless ones in the Constitution.

by bluthru 11y ago

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

> States are just a collection of individuals. No. States actually have rights, not just individuals. There's a difference between a federation and a unitary state, and federation was considered a good idea. (Short summary: any power can become a tyranny, so keep other powers around to counter the national government.) > Laws are made by human beings, not land. Nobody ever said that laws were made by land. But laws are made by states, not just by individuals. > It's contradictory to vote for senators by using "1 person 1 vote" who then do not proportionally represent the population. Only if you hold the mistaken idea that senators represent people rather than states. They don't, and they shouldn't.

bluthru 11y ago
>States actually have rights, not just individuals States are arbitrary and given rights by individuals. States cannot feel the effects of any law. States are not citizens. >(Short summary: any power can become a tyranny, so keep other powers around to counter the national government.) That's a comforting idea in the abstract, but when applied it basically means people in rural areas should have more say in the national government than people in urban areas. You're literally in favor of taking power away from people and giving it to others. You're for tyranny of the rural rather than people being treated equally. In the age of telecommunication it makes even less sense. We're not the EU. The idea that the US is a collection of countries went out the window a long, long time ago. Federal laws have a much bigger effect on people than state laws. The Senate is the only place where people are not proportionally represented. To argue for it is to say that people are not equal, and that states are more important than people, which flies in the face of democracy. EDIT: To address your point below, you're in favor of taking away power from some and giving it to others based on population density. This is a horrible idea since our cities are where our most educated and most productive live.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  > You're literally in favor of taking power away from people and giving it to others. Absolutely. For the exact same reason that we don't live in a democracy. It's a feature, not a bug. I mean, by your argument, why have a House or a Senate? We've got telecommunications, just have a vote. Direct democracy. Why not? Well, that turns out historically to be a really bad idea. But anything short of it is "taking power away from people and giving it to others", in one form or another.

douche 11y ago

Senators are not supposed to be directly elected. Nor are income taxes supposed to be constitutional. Fortunately, we gave up banning the production and sale of alcohol as a bad job, but these other two perverse amendments from a hundred years ago have yet to be repealed.

jcranmer 11y ago
Fun fact: the 16th Amendment does not mean what you think it means. It was written in response to the Pollock decision, which said that a tax on income derived from property was in essence a property tax. Hence why the amendment explicitly refers to "incomes, from whatever source derived." Income taxes were, even at the time, considered constitutional (and were in fact in effect for decades prior). Indeed, the Pollock decision was later overturned, so one might say that the 16th amendment is one of the more useless ones in the Constitution.