3 ms·

The House is the representation of the people. The Senate is supposed to represent each state government. Regardless of population the state governments do no

The House is the representation of the people. The Senate is supposed to represent each state government. Regardless of population the state governments do not need more representation. The role of government is to protect states from foreign or domestic invasion and to ensure no government tramples the rights of the people. But, we are so far past what the government is supposed to do we have people trying to figure out how to get more power for themselves. The Federal government was meant to be inconsequential to your daily life.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
What interest does a state government have other than the interests of the people of the state. Your assertions about the role of the federal government represent one view of that role, and a very historical one at that. That doesn't make it wrong, but it would probably be more useful to say something like "I continue to believe that the view of the some of the framers, and many of the land owning class in the 1700's, that the federal government's role should be very small, continues to be correct even in the 2020s". More useful because lots of people don't agree with that perspective.
- tastyfreeze 4y ago
  The state government is a consolidated view of the people in that state. That doesn't mean that everybody in the state agrees. But, it does mean that there are some settled issues at the state level. A state's senators should be representing those settled views. Senators did represent the people but once removed. The people can be swayed by a smooth talker or a pretty face. The state legislature selecting senators ensured that senators represented the collective wishes of the state and reinforced state sovereignty by giving the state government a voice in congress. The Senate acted as a check on the people's whims represented in the House. Federalists 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 75, and 76 address the Senate but the reason for the Senate is summarized at https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/idea-of-the-senate/1787Federalist62.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/idea-of-the.... Unless a Constitution describing a large government is ratified I will stick to my belief that a large portion of the government is unconstitutional and unnecessary. The Constitution explicitly says that the only powers the federal government has are what is described in the Constitution. Anything beyond that shouldn't exist at the federal level. A small federal government ensures that what the people of one state want has absolutely zero effect on any other state. It ensures that the people that live closest to each other are deciding the rules they live by. That makes for a happier populous as the people feel they actually have a say in how their lives are governed. A large central government is costly, ineffective and overbearing.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    TFA in this case is called "The Unamendable Constitution", which has some bearing on the way that changes in the relationship between the federal government, the states and the constitution have come to pass. I personally would prefer amendments that codified the current role of the federal government (and probably expanded it even further). But no such amendment process is feasibly within reach, and consequently, the evolution of US society has taken place largely outside the constitutional amendment process. > A small federal government ensures that what the people of one state want has absolutely zero effect on any other state. This is ridiculous oversimplification. The people of the states move, they travel, they do business, they have family and friends, across state lines. They also dump waste, use water, pollute the air, kill the wildlife .. across state lines. Recently, procurement of health care across state lines has also become a matter of increased necessity, thanks to the decisions of some states. > A large central government is costly, ineffective and overbearing. and is also the only thing that can provide an effective counterweight to interstate and transnational corporate power. At the big picture level, I think you're fundamentally missing that the context that provided most of the reasons for the original existence of states at all has morphed so dramatically that continuing to insist that the only true conception of the USA is as a rather limited aggregation of states is just denying both time and reality. We had a civil war to deny some of the people in some of the states the opportunity to hold others as slaves and/or leave the union. When the disagreements between states reaches certain levels on some issues, it is not possible for the union to continue unchanged. Those disagreements will lead either to war or dis-union. That was true long before the federal government expanded as it has in the C20, back when we were much closer to the loose aggregation that you seem to prefer.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    > A state's senators should be representing those settled views. why? how is this superior to the alternatives?
    - tastyfreeze 4y ago
      I feel like I have repeatedly stated my case on why the Senate representing state governments is superior. So, it is your turn for justification. How is a Senate elected by the people superior to one selected by state governments? How does expanding the Senate to look like the House maintain the bicameral legislature?

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

What interest does a state government have other than the interests of the people of the state. Your assertions about the role of the federal government represent one view of that role, and a very historical one at that. That doesn't make it wrong, but it would probably be more useful to say something like "I continue to believe that the view of the some of the framers, and many of the land owning class in the 1700's, that the federal government's role should be very small, continues to be correct even in the 2020s". More useful because lots of people don't agree with that perspective.

tastyfreeze 4y ago
The state government is a consolidated view of the people in that state. That doesn't mean that everybody in the state agrees. But, it does mean that there are some settled issues at the state level. A state's senators should be representing those settled views. Senators did represent the people but once removed. The people can be swayed by a smooth talker or a pretty face. The state legislature selecting senators ensured that senators represented the collective wishes of the state and reinforced state sovereignty by giving the state government a voice in congress. The Senate acted as a check on the people's whims represented in the House. Federalists 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 75, and 76 address the Senate but the reason for the Senate is summarized at https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/idea-of-the-senate/1787Federalist62.htm https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/idea-of-the.... Unless a Constitution describing a large government is ratified I will stick to my belief that a large portion of the government is unconstitutional and unnecessary. The Constitution explicitly says that the only powers the federal government has are what is described in the Constitution. Anything beyond that shouldn't exist at the federal level. A small federal government ensures that what the people of one state want has absolutely zero effect on any other state. It ensures that the people that live closest to each other are deciding the rules they live by. That makes for a happier populous as the people feel they actually have a say in how their lives are governed. A large central government is costly, ineffective and overbearing.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  TFA in this case is called "The Unamendable Constitution", which has some bearing on the way that changes in the relationship between the federal government, the states and the constitution have come to pass. I personally would prefer amendments that codified the current role of the federal government (and probably expanded it even further). But no such amendment process is feasibly within reach, and consequently, the evolution of US society has taken place largely outside the constitutional amendment process. > A small federal government ensures that what the people of one state want has absolutely zero effect on any other state. This is ridiculous oversimplification. The people of the states move, they travel, they do business, they have family and friends, across state lines. They also dump waste, use water, pollute the air, kill the wildlife .. across state lines. Recently, procurement of health care across state lines has also become a matter of increased necessity, thanks to the decisions of some states. > A large central government is costly, ineffective and overbearing. and is also the only thing that can provide an effective counterweight to interstate and transnational corporate power. At the big picture level, I think you're fundamentally missing that the context that provided most of the reasons for the original existence of states at all has morphed so dramatically that continuing to insist that the only true conception of the USA is as a rather limited aggregation of states is just denying both time and reality. We had a civil war to deny some of the people in some of the states the opportunity to hold others as slaves and/or leave the union. When the disagreements between states reaches certain levels on some issues, it is not possible for the union to continue unchanged. Those disagreements will lead either to war or dis-union. That was true long before the federal government expanded as it has in the C20, back when we were much closer to the loose aggregation that you seem to prefer.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  > A state's senators should be representing those settled views. why? how is this superior to the alternatives?
  - tastyfreeze 4y ago
    I feel like I have repeatedly stated my case on why the Senate representing state governments is superior. So, it is your turn for justification. How is a Senate elected by the people superior to one selected by state governments? How does expanding the Senate to look like the House maintain the bicameral legislature?