For the Constitutional techno geeks....

[MarinePMI]

An interesting and worthy read about the speed of communications today, how it affects politics today, and what the Framer's have attempted to put in place to combat mob mentality. Very apolitical...which is refreshing for a change...

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-rule/568351/

Madison and Hamilton believed that Athenian citizens had been swayed by crude and ambitious politicians who had played on their emotions. The demagogue Cleon was said to have seduced the assembly into being more hawkish toward Athens’s opponents in the Peloponnesian War, and even the reformer Solon canceled debts and debased the currency. In Madison’s view, history seemed to be repeating itself in America.....

.....Madison referred to impetuous mobs as factions, which he defined in “Federalist No. 10” as a group “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” Factions arise, he believed, when public opinion forms and spreads quickly. But they can dissolve if the public is given time and space to consider long-term interests rather than short-term gratification.

 

[pmclaine]

The Founding Fathers were not politicians.

More than anything they were philosophers of human nature/behavior.

Their perception of human responses to power was uncanny and their benevolence in designing a Republic that protected people from that at a time when they had all the power at the finger tips to abuse is not appreciated enough.

Contrast the Founding Fathers actions once attaining power with that of the French in their Revolution....

 

[pmclaine]

Strong argument why the 17th Amendment needs to go away.

Senators should be less loyal to party more loyal to Republic.

 

[pmclaine]

The problem with our media/communications isnt their accessibility its that they are becoming monopolized and the messages are being packaged to the point there is no middle ground or room for varied views.

Information and communication are being controlled by few as opposed to the variety of independent news papers and broadcasters that existed pre internet.

Sure internet allows incredible access but who is running the filters and how much is out right propaganda/agit prop?

 

[EddieNFL]

Strong argument why the 17th Amendment needs to go away.

Senators should be less loyal to party more loyal to Republic.

Not sure a group of lower level swamp creatures would do any better. Agree, loyalties are displaced.

 

[pmclaine]

Not sure a group of lower level swamp creatures would do any better. Agree, loyalties are displaced.

Now all Senators do is campaign and scam for their party.

Under appointment it gave governors and states power.

It ensured some turn over not this crime of 40 year serving senators.

 

[308pirate]

Amendments that need to go:
16th
17th
24th
26th

The 22nd needs to be extended to cover every single member of Congress

 

[FS1]

If the founders ran for office today they would lose. The Left would say have you seen all the places GW slept?

 

[Bender]

I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

-Jefferson-

 

[Jperk0278]

The problem with our media/communications isnt their accessibility its that they are becoming monopolized and the messages are being packaged to the point there is no middle ground or room for varied views.

Information and communication are being controlled by few as opposed to the variety of independent news papers and broadcasters that existed pre internet.

Sure internet allows incredible access but who is running the filters and how much is out right propaganda/agit prop?

The problem is, those of us who hold the freedoms given to private citizens in our constitution dear have no common ground upon which to agree with the democrat/rino marxists who are attempting to destroy our republic.

They can’t be reasoned with and must simply be defeated.

 

[pmclaine]

The problem is, those of us who hold the freedoms given to private citizens in our constitution dear have no common ground upon which to agree with the democrat/rino marxists who are attempting to destroy our republic.

They can’t be reasoned with and must simply be defeated.

Tried it once Obama, McCain and Lois Lerner took a big steaming shit on the effort in one of the biggest crimes against the people that was ever committed yet never prosecuted.

 

[EddieNFL]

Now all Senators do is campaign and scam for their party.

Under appointment it gave governors and states power.

It ensured some turn over not this crime of 40 year serving senators.

Turnover would be a good thing, but swamp creatures will always appoint swamp creatures.

 

[pmclaine]

Turnover would be a good thing, but swamp creatures will always appoint swamp creatures.

I dont like pointing out things on present circumstances nor should policy be designed to favor one party over another but with all the Republican governors well a picture is worth a thousand words....

I think making the people of the state vote their Governor based on the thought this effects their federal representation it brings a bit more import to the process.

Governors would be taking back some of the power from the Fed govt.

A states executive should have a fed voice.

A president that knows a governor can appoint people that will hog tie him has to listen to the states.

 

[MarinePMI]

@EddieNFL

True, but they would be local swamp creatures. Not swamp creatures of a common and densely packed mass like what is in DC today.

As I said in a previous conversation to someone, going back to Governors appointing Senators allows them (Senators) to focus on the business of their local constituents, and make hard decisions that today would be political suicide. Ever wonder why Social Security and Medicare never get solved? Because it would be political suicide when trying to get re-elected, even if it was the right long term decision. People wonder why things don't get done in Congress today, and want $ removed from politics. Appointing Senators again would remove a large portion of that, and keep whatever money used, focused on local (State) issues, and less on Party Line issues.

 

[Nik H]

I dont like pointing out things on present circumstances nor should policy be designed to favor one party over another but with all the Republican governors well a picture is worth a thousand words....

I think making the people of the state vote their Governor based on the thought this effects their federal representation it brings a bit more import to the process.

Governors would be taking back some of the power from the Fed govt.

A states executive should have a fed voice.

A president that knows a governor can appoint people that will hog tie him has to listen to the states.

Unfortunately, this doesn't tell you much. It isn't necessarily about Dumb-o-crats versus Republicans. Look at MA. It is a "red" state that shits all over peoples' rights because of the likes of Maura Healy and that do nothing RINO in the Governor's seat.

I would bet that a map depicting the policies enacted or in process by state would show a very different outcome

 

[Deleted member 113831]

Originally, Senators were elected by thier state legislators and not appointed by the Governor. Reverting back to this, would essentially take all the money out of the Senate races, because you already would know every single voter by name.

 

[308pirate]

Originally, Senators were elected by thier state legislators and not appointed by the Governor

+1

Not sure where this "appointed by Governors" thing came from

 

[MarinePMI]

+1

Not sure where this "appointed by Governors" thing came from

That's probably on me for reading it incorrectly, or a source I read once that had that incorrectly stated. It should have been, people elect their representatives (for the House), and the representatives decided (voted) on the State's Senators. Regardless (appointed by Governor or elected by Representatives), going back to this (I think) would remove a lot of the money from the Senatorial races and let the Senators take the "long" view on policy without incurring concern about re-election prospects.

 

[pmclaine]

Unfortunately, this doesn't tell you much. It isn't necessarily about Dumb-o-crats versus Republicans. Look at MA. It is a "red" state that shits all over peoples' rights because of the likes of Maura Healy and that do nothing RINO in the Governor's seat.

I would bet that a map depicting the policies enacted or in process by state would show a very different outcome

Yes you are likely right in MA. With our elected for life one party legislature.

MA had a law where by vacancies in office were appointed by the governor.

When Kerry looked like he was going to be President the legislature changed the law to special public elections because they didn't want Romney to pick the successor to Kerry.

When Kennedy died the law was still on the books for special election and the legislature tried to change the law back to appointment so that Deval Patrick would pick the successor - and Scott Brown got in to kill Obamacare which he didn't.

Still got to think all that red center of the country territory would elect more conservatives than communists through the legislature.

 

[truth]

The problem with our media/communications isnt their accessibility its that they are becoming monopolized and the messages are being packaged to the point there is no middle ground or room for varied views.

Information and communication are being controlled by few as opposed to the variety of independent news papers and broadcasters that existed pre internet.

Sure internet allows incredible access but who is running the filters and how much is out right propaganda/agit prop?

Looking back in time I see the rise of CNN, and really the first Gulf War's live broadcast, as a demarcation point. Prior to that the "News" was something that was broadcast a few times a day. This allowed for a more measured telling of any story as there was time to research and vet info more in line with print media. Once the appetite for instant coverage was wetted, and the ensuing advertising revenue potential realized, it was off the races of sound bytes and hyperbole in an arms race of BREAKING NEWS to capture more eyeballs. Without regulation consolidation was inevitable as economies are sought. The internet has exponentially accelerated this by removing any barrier of competence from the equation, allowing anyone with an agenda to push it forward with unlimited bandwidth at virtually no cost. Fake news isn't new, it's just finally been weaponized politically. It seems that in the timeline from printing press to the iphone we may have finally found out where too much of a good thing is no longer a good thing.

https://timeline.com/photos-gulf-war-cnn-effect-press-manipulation-66680a20cf42

 

[EddieNFL]

@EddieNFL

True, but they would be local swamp creatures. Not swamp creatures of a common and densely packed mass like what is in DC today.

True, but they assimilate quickly. Not disagreeing with you or PM. I'm not just sure what long term effect it would have. The political animal is nothing if not adaptable.

 

[MarinePMI]

LOL! Oh, I hear you. One would hope (and desire) that the local State elections would vary in party control enough (through normal need for change by the population) that the Senators would change. Think along the lines of the judicial appointments; whoever is in the majority would select them. And since they are 6 year terms, and representatives are 2 year terms, a lot can change in the balance between Senator appointments/elections by the Representatives.

I suspect that is what the Framer's had in mind, when they made the SCOTUS appointments as they are. It encouraged a slow change in make up of the courts, to allow them to be removed from the effects of mob rule. Perhaps the same thing is in order for the Senate (rather than term limits, which sounds good, but is too rigid a standard in my view). Some (granted, few) people make Senators that should stay for a long time. Others should be treated like diapers.

As I think more and more about the Senate and the House, as well as the Dems and the Repubs, I begin to think (in my mind anyways) that the Senate was intended to be the "wise" part of the Congress (taking the long view of what is best for the country) and the House was intended to be the "passion" or "emotion" of the Congress (conveying the pulse of the population and their raw desires in policy and such). In my mind, I think that is why Conservatives have typically held the Senate, and the House has usually been held by the Liberals. The POTUS becomes the weight (that in theory at least) tips the balance ever so slightly one way or the other, allowing this "melting pot" of people to make changes (both liberal and conservative) slowly, so that it's effects can be accepted or rejected by the American people over a period of time.

Anyways, I suppose I'm just rambling...

 

[pmclaine]

Looking back in time I see the rise of CNN, and really the first Gulf War's live broadcast, as a demarcation point. Prior to that the "News" was something that was broadcast a few times a day. This allowed for a more measured telling of any story as there was time to research and vet info more in line with print media. Once the appetite for instant coverage was wetted, and the ensuing advertising revenue potential realized, it was off the races of sound bytes and hyperbole in an arms race of BREAKING NEWS to capture more eyeballs. Without regulation consolidation was inevitable as economies are sought. The internet has exponentially accelerated this by removing any barrier of competence from the equation, allowing anyone with an agenda to push it forward with unlimited bandwidth at virtually no cost. Fake news isn't new, it's just finally been weaponized politically. It seems that in the timeline from printing press to the iphone we may have finally found out where too much of a good thing is no longer a good thing.

https://timeline.com/photos-gulf-war-cnn-effect-press-manipulation-66680a20cf42

Good rational points.

If tomorrow we went back to a single hour of news AM and PM everything that has to be known would be known, the reporting would have to actually print what is actually news not a ton of BS, not every time they return from commercial would the screen flash "BREAKING NEWS" and than they te;ll you the same shot they said ten minutes ago.

Im liking One America News for its basic telling but they need to flesh out there stories some. Like the others they are a twenty four hour format.....22 hours too many.

 

[MarinePMI]

Sounds like someone just needs to offer a vetted subscription of a daily download of news, and sell it as such. Researched, corroborated, succinct, apolitical news. Like, you know, what the fuck happened in the past 24 hrs.

 

[pmclaine]

LOL! Oh, I hear you. One would hope (and desire) that the local State elections would vary in party control enough (through normal need for change by the population) that the Senators would change. Think along the lines of the judicial appointments; whoever is in the majority would select them. And since they are 6 year terms, and representatives are 2 year terms, a lot can change in the balance between Senator appointments/elections by the Representatives.

I suspect that is what the Framer's had in mind, when they made the SCOTUS appointments as they are. It encouraged a slow change in make up of the courts, to allow them to be removed from the effects of mob rule. Perhaps the same thing is in order for the Senate (rather than term limits, which sounds good, but is too rigid a standard in my view). Some (granted, few) people make Senators that should stay for a long time. Others should be treated like diapers.

As I think more and more about the Senate and the House, as well as the Dems and the Repubs, I begin to think (in my mind anyways) that the Senate was intended to be the "wise" part of the Congress (taking the long view of what is best for the country) and the House was intended to be the "passion" or "emotion" of the Congress (conveying the pulse of the population and their raw desires in policy and such). In my mind, I think that is why Conservatives have typically held the Senate, and the House has usually been held by the Liberals. The POTUS becomes the weight (that in theory at least) tips the balance ever so slightly one way or the other, allowing this "melting pot" of people to make changes (both liberal and conservative) slowly, so that it's effects can be accepted or rejected by the American people over a period of time.

Anyways, I suppose I'm just rambling...

It adds another level of moderation and should take the money out of the equation.

Most state legislatures are that divided that some accomodation would have to be made with the minority party in order to confirm an appointment.

They would be accountable to the state legislature at least and they have more power than the individual voter.

I dont think Ed Markey has lived in MA in years. His address is probably moms house. He is accountable only to Washington and merely provides lip service to the state at election time.

His deal is seeing what deal he came make for Ed MArkey if he votes for projects that favor another state or corporation.

Guy went from being an ice cream man to a millionaire on a lifetime of public dis-service.

 

[MarinePMI]

Yeah, like it requires a bipartisan percentage of support(?) or after so many elections (3?) by one party, the minority gets to elect the Senator. Something like that, that keeps things from solidifying.

 

[308pirate]

Regardless (appointed by Governor or elected by Representatives), going back to this (I think) would remove a lot of the money from the Senatorial races and let the Senators take the "long" view on policy without incurring concern about re-election prospects.

Absolutely agree

 

[308pirate]

PS, a similar devolution has been happening to the British Parliament's House of Lords over the last century and a quarter..........and not for the best.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Bottom line gents, the progressives can do what the hell they want I am doing what I want according to the Constitution, if they dont like it we can shoot it the fuck out on the battle field. Fuck DC. Unconstitutional law (any law that is not authorized under the Constitution) is no law at all. Be careful what laws you follow you might give them a sense of legitimacy

 

[ArmyJerry]

Also remember, Republican and Democrat parties are not part of our Constitution, they are Mafias nothing more and nothing less. Fuck them all, bipartisanship is a keyword to get the ignorant to thing high crimes being agreed to is by the two criminal organizations is Constitutional, thats not how it fucking works.

Buy a lot more ammo.

 

[MarinePMI]

And buy more ammo. (Crap, yo beat me to it by a c-hair).

 

[FS1]

I think someone should start a company named "Steal this Ammo" a brand just for libs.