 |
|
| Politics Forum Index » Radical Politics Forum » Do we really need a Senate? They are a dangerous group... |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Raymond... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 1:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
The US Senate does not represent the American people and never did.
Even the best of them has never been independent. They have always
been controlled by the very groups that President Eisenhower warned us
about:
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military
industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced
power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.
Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with
our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may
prosper together...."
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
Do we really need a Senate? Why? Not really. They are a dangerous
group of men and women, both Republican and Democrat and should be
done away with. As a group, they are more powerful than the president
himself. If they are of the same party as the president, legislation
becomes a rubber stamp result. If the majority of the group is of the
opposite party, legislation becomes grid locked. Let's shit can the
United States Senate.
Yep ! Shit can the US Senate. And while we're at it, send the
worthless Electoral College to the Recycle Bin. Why? Because one is
unnecessary and the other is so corrupted, and both are obstacles to
producing honest and favorable legislation for the American people.
Don't be under the impression that the only legal whorehouse is in
Nevada. The Senate chamber in the US Capitol houses some of the most
expensive whores on Planet Earth. And anything goes for a price.
Senators don't represent their states. They represent national special
interest groups that don't help most of us.
In the late 18th Century, when rich old men were planning the
corporate control of the proletariat, the Senate may have been a dream
of compromise that made some sense, but the dream has become a
disgusting nightmare and there is an urgent need to retire the one-
hundred parasitic corporate controlled hookers.
So, if the Senate is such an impediment to democracy, why and how did
it come to be part of our government?
First, The notion for an upper and lower chamber was no doubt carried
to the new American community in the minds of men accustomed to the
division of the English political system. The original Parliament, the
Lords, was an assembly of the leading men of the kingdom, the
propertied nobles. The house of Commons came later as a second body to
represent communities. The upper house was always intended to
represent wealth and function.
It all began with the so-called Virginia Plan which proposed the two-
house legislature. The plan left the smaller states with only one
representative and large states, like Virginia and Massachusetts, with
sixteen or seventeen representatives. And since the upper house was to
be chosen by the lower house it meant that the larger states would
determine the political make-up of the US Senate.
Ultimately, a compromise was arranged. a committee, which included
Benjamin Franklin, recommended that the national charter of the lower
house, whose membership was to be apportioned according to population,
should be offset by an upper house in which the states should be
equally represented each should be equally represented, two members to
be chosen by each state. This idea seemed to satisfy the suspicions of
the small states and it was decided that the lower house members would
serve for two years and the two senators would serve for a period of
six years.
If the states were of equal size and population there would not have
been a need for both houses. And, today, there is no comparison to a
nation of thirteen states and a total population of approximately four-
million and a country of fifty states and a population of close to
three-hundred million people.
Politicians are constantly telling the American people that the
federal government is bloated with "too much government" and that
power should be returned to the states. They are correct and if they
are sincere, they could start by unfrocking the prima donna senators
and abolishing the senatorial institution itself. There is nothing
done in the upper chamber that cannot become the duty of a very
capable lower house that is closer to "We the people."
Federal elections should be held differently than state and local
government elections. The reason we have a United States Senate is
because of the Virginia Plan, a compromise to make the state
representation equal. Otherwise there would no be a need for the
bicameral government. Many countries have a unicameral government that
works very well.
Is there a solution? Yes!
First, federal elections should be held separately from local and
state politics
When it comes to national politics, do away with state lines. Create
districts similar to our twelve Federal Reserve Districts. The number
of districts would be determined after study of the practical need.
Each district would consist of approximately the same number of
citizens and each would contain at least one of the large states, in
addition to both north and southern states. And finally,
representatives would no longer be elected , nor represent
constituents in districts within the states as presently done.
Instead, at-large representatives from the new districts would go to
Washington.
Example (only): If we decide on twelve districts (25 million people
within a district) and based on present numbers of representatives
(435), there would be 36 at-large representatives per district.
The advantage? It would break up the present pork barrel district
politics. It would discourage north-south, blue-state - red-state bias
and political competition and presidential state campaigning and
primaries like we are presently experiencing. It would eliminate
gerrymandering and gain or loss of representatives from one state to
another , unless there was massive migrations to other districts.
There would be other advantages.
To give an example of a country of six districts (For sake of
explanation only)
In the west, the #1 district would be made up of Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, California, Nevada , Arizona, Utah, Alaska and Hawaii. Using
the 1990 census, there were 42,368,182 people. Coming east, similar
districts would be created with equal populations and large state
small state, north and south to represent the people.
In the east there would be a district that represented NY., Pa.,
Virginia, N. Carolina, So. Carolina, Florida and Georgia. In 1990, the
population was about the same as the district #1 on the west coast.
It is the Senate that allegedly balances the unequal populations of
the states, not the Electoral College. The truth is that the wealthy
Senate represents the CEOs of the large corporations of this country -
not the working men and women who go to respectable jobs each day to
earn a living and care for their families.
The state legislatures elected the senators until 1912, when they were
forced to cave in and the Seventeenth Amendment became part of the
Constitution and senators were elected directly by the people of their
states.
Prior to 1912, the powerful men, known as the "Millionaires Club"
refused to entertain the idea of direct election by the people. In
1894, 1898, 1900, and 1902, the House of Representatives supported an
amendment for the direct election of senators, and each time the
Senate beat back the effort.
In MY opinion, this plan was a great blunder and, today, the Senate is
far too powerful and should be abolished. There are other ways to
balance the population power.
Canada and every other modern country in the world has a parliamentary
system of government-even the countries that we call our best allies,
i.e., Israel, England, Japan, Germany, the rest of Europe, Russia, and
many others. Every one of them has more than two parties. The people
do not vote directly for their leader president, Prime Minister, etc..
How do they elect theirs. Sharon for example. Blair?
Iraq will have a parliamentary system if they ever have a real
government at all
So do these countries all have a bicameral system like the United
States? How about Israel, our greatest parasite ally? Explain the
Knesset - members and how Prime Minister is elected, etc.. Do they
have a upper and lower house like we do? Why not? Japan: Explain the
Diet. We set up their
government. Why didn't we make it exactly the same as ours?
Why are Jingos so up tight when someone suggests that we have a new
constitutional convention and write a new constitution, while they
have no objection to considering an amendment to our present
constitution if it benefits their own personal wishes and wants.
Argue the advantages of our corrupt and controlled two party system
opposed to other countries - again like Israel's Knesset. How many
parties, etc..
My method of improving our political system involves a combination of
the best of all systems in the world. Systems with the least amount of
corporate control and corruption.
Since Americans are seldom exposed to a worthy class in history or
government, especially the history and government of the United
States-- comparing America to other nations and systems of government
--it is difficult to explain how to improve our politics. Jay Leno
makes fun of our students with his quiz of idiots. Most Americans
don't know the difference between the Civil War and the Revolution. If
you doubt that, ask Jay..
First thing I would do would be : Do away with the present U.S. Senate
and the House of Representatives as we now know it.. I would divide
the country into districts/territories, whatever anyone wanted to call
them, much like we do with our time zones and our Federal Reserve
Banking system. Notice that each district includes a large city in
different parts of the U.S..
See map of districts: http://www.federalreserve.gov/others.htm
It was set up this way to give the American people an equal
opportunity to practical and efficient banking. This is not my
division idea system, but is just and idea of how I would do it.
Create districts with equal populations.
This example is just that, an example. Adjustments and more thought
would be required, but this example is far superior to the corrupt and
passe method of electing a president and congress person such as we
have just witnessed and will again.
See examples of other governments and how they elect -- and how their
elected officials operate.
Japan is a constitutional monarchy with a parlimentary government.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/japan/government-japan.html
The National Diet and Political Parties of Japan
http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/VIII/3/334.pdf
Germany has a parlimentary democracy ;
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0858400.html
Israel Is A Democracy:
http://israelemb.org/kids/democracy.html
And see Thread on Is America Really a Liberal Democracy
Is America Really a Liberal Democracy
I am looking for any solution to a bad thing in our great county and
any suggestions are welcome. Any improvement has to begin in
Washington and involves the people of both parties
HELP ! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:49 pm
|
|