T1B

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 12:37 pm**

Truman wrote:
smackaholic wrote:the main roadblock to this is the senate's structure.

personally, i think that structure is bullshit and should be done away with. congressional representation should be decided solely by population. you could still have a lower and upper house, but, proportioning should be decided solely by population. alaska having the same number of senators as california means alaskans have greater representation/per capita. the fact that large states tend to be populated by dumbfukks makes me want to reconsider, but, i still think it's the way to go.

this will never fly as it would result in splits all over as folks realized that doing so could increase their representation.
No other explanation. Your civics score HAS to be ~~an anomaly~~ flat out bullshit.

FTFY.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 3:21 pm**

Truman wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Truman wrote:The Founders delegated two Senators per state PRECISELY to prevent the scenario you jock: To keep the LARGE population states from dominating the SMALL population states, and to give ALL states a say in the way we’re governed.
Actually the Founders delegated two senators per state in order that they represent the interests of each state with all states being equal.
Which is what I intended when I suggested that the Founders wanted ALL the states to have a say in the way we're governed.

The 17th amendment has largely voided that particular rationale. You could easily give each state +2 representatives, disband the Senate and move to a unicameral legislature without any discernible difference in policy making.
True. But TWO houses of Congress stems the asshattery devised by a single body, most specifically, the House of Representatives. Madison had a great take in Federalist 62 ascribing the demeanor of a Senator and his role as a member of that legislative body i.e. to keep the hotheads in the House in check.

Actually, Congress resulted from a compromise between the larger states, who wanted proportional representation, and the smaller states, who wanted each state to have equal representation.

The result was a bicameral legislature, with the upper body (Senate) being represented equally, and the lower body (House of Representatives) being represented in proportion to population.

Posted: **Wed Jul 20, 2011 4:25 pm**

Truman wrote:
BTW, your “idea” would never fly because it would take THREE-QUARTERS of the states legislatures or THREE QUARTERS of the state’s constitutional conventions to change the fucking Constitution.

Idiot, fucking, dumbass. You couldn’t have picked a better avatard.

WHOA!

Might wanna slow down on the "idiot, fucking, dumbass" thing.

While it does take a 3/4 majority to change the Constitution... except there's one stone-cold-lock that can't be changed by any members of Congress...

And take a big ol' guess what it is?

I'll give you a hint -- it involves the "two senators" thing.

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2011 2:57 pm**

Since I don’t consider you any serious threat to ever share the descriptive jumble of adjectives, verbs and nouns normally reserved for smackaholic, I’m going to cut you some slack and suggest that your above take was simply poorly worded.

Only “one stone-cold lock that can’t be changed by any members of Congress”?

I’ll give YOU a hint – it’s a mite bigger than the “two senators” thingie.

Don’t know about the Article V in your Constitution, but the one in mine states that ” The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution”.

Note the word “propose”. Congress can’t “change” any of the Constitution without a bit of help.

Theoretically, were two-thirds of both Houses of Congress of a mind to adopt ‘holics whack-brain skull-fuckery to re- apportion the Senate based upon population, they could – upon ratification of such a proposal by three-quarters of the state’s legislatures or constitutional conventions.

I’m sure that’s what you meant to write…

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:37 pm**

Truman wrote:Theoretically, were two-thirds of both Houses of Congress of a mind to adopt ‘holics whack-brain skull-fuckery to re- apportion the Senate based upon population, they could – upon ratification of such a proposal by three-quarters of the state’s legislatures or constitutional conventions.

I’m sure that’s what you meant to write…

You whiffed.

I guess what I meant to write was:

Article V wrote: no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

So no, that one can't be fucked with by a 3/4 majority. Nothing short of 100% would work.

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:05 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:
Truman wrote:Theoretically, were two-thirds of both Houses of Congress of a mind to adopt ‘holics whack-brain skull-fuckery to re- apportion the Senate based upon population, they could – upon ratification of such a proposal by three-quarters of the state’s legislatures or constitutional conventions.

I’m sure that’s what you meant to write…
You whiffed.

I guess what I meant to write was:

Article V wrote: no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate
So no, that one can't be fucked with by a 3/4 majority. Nothing short of 100% would work.

...unless the states were to vote to amend the Constitution.

You DO realize the states have the power to scrap the entire document, right Dins? There's only been a (tard-bound) move to do so since the Roosevelt administration....

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:18 pm**

You're flailing.

Read it again, and try to understand -- the 2 senators CAN'T BE CHANGED. Everything else is on the table for amendment... except that.

And if they try and scrap it... shooting time.

Posted: **Thu Jul 21, 2011 11:25 pm**

Truman wrote:
smackaholic wrote:the main roadblock to this is the senate's structure.

personally, i think that structure is bullshit and should be done away with. congressional representation should be decided solely by population. you could still have a lower and upper house, but, proportioning should be decided solely by population. alaska having the same number of senators as california means alaskans have greater representation/per capita. the fact that large states tend to be populated by dumbfukks makes me want to reconsider, but, i still think it's the way to go.

this will never fly as it would result in splits all over as folks realized that doing so could increase their representation.
No other explanation. Your civics score HAS to be an anomaly.

nope. not an anomaly. i am a good multiple choice tester and i had a good HS history teacher and find the subject interesting

I’m of the mind to consider it provident that the Founders failed to consult the wisdom of a certain grammatically-challenged, retired E-4 asshat from the Nutbag State when they sat down to write the Perfect Document.

E-6 still active reservist. how 'bout you?

Jesus-fucking-Christ-in –a –Waffle-House.

WHERE to start with this...

Congressional representation already IS apportioned by population, you fucking illiterate dumbass. It’s called the House of Representatives.

congress has two bodies, dumbfukk. one is apportioned by population, the other is not. alaskans get a whole lot more representin' per capita than californians. i find that to be unfair.

The Founders delegated two Senators per state PRECISELY to prevent the scenario you jock: To keep the LARGE population states from dominating the SMALL population states, and to give ALL states a say in the way we’re governed.

they did what they had to do to get the small states to come on board.

By your way of “thinking”, California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois should collectively hold 36 Senate seats, as 36% of our country’s population currently resides in those states. Add Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, and New Jersey to that mix, and all of a sudden the Senate representation for those 10 states shoots up to 53. So who’s gonna stop ‘em from voting to turn Connecticut into the East Coast’s landfill? Your lone designated voice in the Senate?

they hold 36% of the house seats, so fukking what. a state with a large population and paying a large chunk of fed taxes should have a proportional representation. and the problem of being turned into a landfill or any other such abuse should be covered by the constitution which prohibits them from overstepping their role, not that they've paid attention to that document at all during the last century or so.

BTW, your “idea” would never fly because it would take THREE-QUARTERS of the states legislatures or THREE QUARTERS of the state’s constitutional conventions to change the fucking Constitution.

no fukking shit. i said as much, dumbass. just because i want something, doesn't mean i expect it will happen.

Idiot, fucking, dumbass. You couldn’t have picked a better avatard.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:09 am**

congress has two bodies, dumbfukk. one is apportioned by population, the other is not. alaskans get a whole lot more representin' per capita than californians. i find that to be unfair.

The Senate isn't supposed to represent the people, dumbass. That's what the House does. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the state and all states are equal.

Does that clear things up?

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:16 am**

mvscal wrote:
congress has two bodies, dumbfukk. one is apportioned by population, the other is not. alaskans get a whole lot more representin' per capita than californians. i find that to be unfair.
The Senate isn't supposed to represent the people, dumbass. That's what the House does. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the state and all states are equal.

Does that clear things up?

you can play semantics if you like. they essentially do the same thing, represent their constituency. one group just represents a different sized group, except in the case of small population states where they represent the same group.

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:34 am**

What part of 'all states have equal representation in the senate' are you struggling to comprehend?

Posted: **Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:41 am**

mvscal wrote:What part of 'all states have equal representation in the senate' are you struggling to comprehend?

I'm guessing that he's still sorting out the word "all".

Posted: **Sat Jul 23, 2011 1:31 am**

Dinsdale wrote:You're flailing.

Read it again, and try to understand -- the 2 senators CAN'T BE CHANGED. Everything else is on the table for amendment... except that.

And if they try and scrap it... shooting time.

Well, I don’t feel like I’m flailing, fwiw...

:?

But I took your advice anyway, and reread the Article (Does reread make your List of English-language bastardizations? I digress...). Here it is, in its entirety:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

Now, while I DO understand how to punctuate three-letter words and manage the T1B quote function, no one here is about to confuse my intellect with that of the Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief that currently resides at 1600 Pennsylvania in our nation’s capitol.

Still, if a governing document that empowers its people to change the nature of its substance, including the very existence of the empowering document itself, then I have to believe that the people do indeed retain the right to determine how they’re represented. Simple language in a whack-nut three-quarters approved amendment could easily redact Article V.

Posted: **Sat Jul 23, 2011 2:14 am**

Truman wrote:Here it is, in its entirety:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Still, if a governing document that empowers its people to change the nature of its substance, including the very existence of the empowering document itself, then I have to believe that the people do indeed retain the right to determine how they’re represented. Simple language in a whack-nut three-quarters approved amendment could easily redact Article V.

Why don't you back up and have another run at it, Corky.

no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate

That is an absolute statement and is not subject to amendment.

Posted: **Sat Jul 23, 2011 6:44 pm**

You're missing the point. What if there were no Article V?

Merriam defines the term amend thusly:

1: to put right; especially: to make emendations in (as a text)
2 a: to change or modify for the better : improve <amend the situation> b: to alter especially in phraseology; especially: to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend a constitution>

Article V provides the people with the constitutional mechanism to change the Document. Since we're dealing with hypotheticals here, let's say a proposed 28th Amendment is sent to the people that not only reapportions the Senate by population, but redacts the Article itself. And three-quarters of the states happen to agree. Your absolute statement all of a sudden isn't all that absolute any more.

There are too many hills to die upon in this shithole, and this ain't one of them. But if you believe the above scenario to be less than theoretically possible, then you might want to think again.

Lots of folks out there believe this country to be long over-due a Modern Document for the Modern Era, including this progressive asshat who blames "institutional gridlock" on "voters in rural America and in less urbanized areas of the country (who) exercise disproportionate political influence over this country's policies and priorities...('sup smackaholic)" and summarizes his long-winded harangue by stating that "(o)ther vibrant democracies in the Western World have revisited and updated their constitutional schemes of government when the evidence showed that the governmental machinery no longer served the public interest. Why should we be any different?"

I suppose there's a better chance of the sun exploding or Goober finally dying before something like this were to ever occur, but I'd like to think that there are enough mvscals and Dinsdales in this country to ever let a Paul Nevins have his way.

Posted: **Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:38 pm**

You can do whatever you want to Article V providing that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Posted: **Sat Jul 23, 2011 9:51 pm**

Truman wrote:Still, if a governing document that empowers its people to change the nature of its substance, including the very existence of the empowering document itself, then I have to believe that the people do indeed retain the right to determine how they’re represented. Simple language in a whack-nut three-quarters approved amendment could easily redact Article V.

Posted: **Mon Jul 25, 2011 5:20 am**

I just saw a clip of Diane Feinstein on my local news. I am willing to secede just to get rid of her and Barbara Boxer forever. Can we do this? Only in my dreams.

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2011 5:49 pm**

The Seer wrote:1-aye

Throw in Merced and you have a deal.

Sorry Mikey but if we have to let go of SD to get rid of those valley hicks then you are fucked.

Posted: **Wed Jul 27, 2011 6:21 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
The Seer wrote:1-aye
Throw in Merced and you have a deal.

Sorry Mikey but if we have to let go of SD to get rid of those valley hicks then you are fucked.

That would give me some more impetus to move back to the Bay Area - I'll never set up house in LA.

We do have an office in Concord...

T1B

South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California

Re: South California