400+ Protesters Arrested at DC Captitol

[Master PO]

I agree that the check and balance is not what it was.. but why would you say because of the 17th amendment? senators being elected vs appointed by state legislatures... I'm not sure what your line of thinking is with that.

because by senators being elected by the people, that makes the senate a collective body, and that collective body can be lobbied, bought and paid for by special interest groups, because the senators are free to vote any way they wish, and collective laws are made in the interest of special interest groups, this ends up in special interest controlling our government, which violates people rights, and violates the separation of powers, ....federalism.

by the senate being appointed by the state legislatures, this makes the senate a non collective body, and cannot be lobbied, bought and paid for, by special interest, because the senator must vote according to how their state legislature tells him to vote, this is how the states protect their state powers from federal government usurpation., and laws cannot be made to violate rights of the people, usurp powers of the states and damage the union.

in original constitutional law .....the house is to represent the interest of the people, while the senate is to represent the interest of the state legislatures, and the president represents the interest of the Union.

in order for any law to be created all 3 interest must be represented in the law making process.

today with senator elected, senators sell their votes to lobbyist just like the house does, which is a collective, which seeks to get laws passed only in their single collective interest and not in the interest of the people -the states and the union.

the founders created the senate to block the collective capacity of the people of the house from making collective laws in the interest of special interest groups.

federalist 63 - The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the administration of the FORMER.

james Madison in the federalist is saying- the people can vote collectively but they cannot make law collectively.

collective law making is destroying this nation....because we have made it possible for collective legislation to get through the senate unopposed with the 17th and become law

 

[OpportunityCost]

if they wanted to protest "money in politics" shouldnt they have gone to the telemarketing offices across the street? where congress spends the majority of its time begging for money?

They should be shutting down K street. Not the Capitol. Bulls eye there.

 

[Gaztopian]

The true moral of this story and the current American election cycle is that participatory democracy is ****

 

[Thoreau72]

If we allowed anyone to protest and obstruct the Capitol it would impede all business there. You can demonstrate in front and around the Capitol in designated areas or with permits which aren't too difficult to obtain and people do it all the time. These people wanted to get arrested so they deliberately went where that was bound to happen.

Yes, so much gets done at the Capitol.

Also, beside being allowed only in certain specific locations, I think protests are also allowed only at certain times of the day and certain days of the week. It's for their own good really, for Public Safety.

 

[RBIII]

Fine. Change the law, don't break it.

Not possible to change the law when the people who would be adversely affected are the only ones who have the power to change the law.

 

[joG]

Not possible to change the law when the people who would be adversely affected are the only ones who have the power to change the law.

Get together the votes and the majority is yours. Excuses are not acceptable and sound like laziness..

 

[Dittohead not!]

Not possible to change the law when the people who would be adversely affected are the only ones who have the power to change the law.

and that's the catch 22 that keeps money and its undue influence in politics.

 

[SocialD]

because by senators being elected by the people, that makes the senate a collective body, and that collective body can be lobbied, bought and paid for by special interest groups, because the senators are free to vote any way they wish, and collective laws are made in the interest of special interest groups, this ends up in special interest controlling our government, which violates people rights, and violates the separation of powers, ....federalism.

by the senate being appointed by the state legislatures, this makes the senate a non collective body, and cannot be lobbied, bought and paid for, by special interest, because the senator must vote according to how their state legislature tells him to vote, this is how the states protect their state powers from federal government usurpation., and laws cannot be made to violate rights of the people, usurp powers of the states and damage the union.

in original constitutional law .....the house is to represent the interest of the people, while the senate is to represent the interest of the state legislatures, and the president represents the interest of the Union.

in order for any law to be created all 3 interest must be represented in the law making process.

today with senator elected, senators sell their votes to lobbyist just like the house does, which is a collective, which seeks to get laws passed only in their single collective interest and not in the interest of the people -the states and the union.

the founders created the senate to block the collective capacity of the people of the house from making collective laws in the interest of special interest groups.

federalist 63 - The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the administration of the FORMER.

james Madison in the federalist is saying- the people can vote collectively but they cannot make law collectively.

collective law making is destroying this nation....because we have made it possible for collective legislation to get through the senate unopposed with the 17th and become law

I see hole with the logic though... The state legislature can be lobbied bought and paid for. so instead of buying the senator the lobbyist just buys off the people who appoint them. it can happen either way.

 

[Master PO]

I see hole with the logic though... The state legislature can be lobbied bought and paid for. so instead of buying the senator the lobbyist just buys off the people who appoint them. it can happen either way.

in order to lobby congress today, the lobbyist needs to go to 1 central location ,Washington, and buy off 100 senators.

if the states controlled the senate, lobbyist would have to visit each of the 50 states and buy off their state legislatures which consist of 7000 people

 

[SocialD]

in order to lobby congress today, the lobbyist needs to go to 1 central location ,Washington, and buy off 100 senators.

if the states controlled the senate, lobbyist would have to visit each of the 50 states and buy off their state legislatures which consist of 7000 people

No that's not true, most bills are killed in subcommittee. Really all one would need to do is get either the chairman or 2 or 3 senators in the committee. at least to kill a bill. getting pushing something through might require more effort.

 

[ChezC3]

I hope they emptied the tanks on 'em...

Whiny maggots, go to work...

 

[Master PO]

No that's not true, most bills are killed in subcommittee. Really all one would need to do is get either the chairman or 2 or 3 senators in the committee. at least to kill a bill. getting pushing something through might require more effort.

please rephrase

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Getting arrested for protesting money in politics. Out "Democracy" is really showing its ass this year. :shock:

[video]http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-capitol-demonstration-idUSKCN0X82M1[/video]



Why can't we all just get along!? eace

Also funny how its not being carried by any of the major news networks. They'd rather talk about the same ol **** they have been talking about forever.

ALl of the major networks are reporting on this, dont lie.

And the protesters went there to get arrested. Good for them it worked.

 

[SocialD]

please rephrase

What I meant was is that a lobbyist doesn't need to buy off all the senators they only need to buy off a couple to get what they want usually.

 

[Master PO]

What I meant was is that a lobbyist doesn't need to buy off all the senators they only need to buy off a couple to get what they want usually.

well its more then a couple, the lobbyist would have to get at least just over half of the states, added to the fact that the lobbyist has to physically have to travel to those states and lobby the state legislatures which would be thousands of people.

as compare to just only visiting Washington today going to the offices of 100 senators, and promising them something in return for their support.

 

[SocialD]

well its more then a couple, the lobbyist would have to get at least just over half of the states, added to the fact that the lobbyist has to physically have to travel to those states and lobby the state legislatures which would be thousands of people.

as compare to just only visiting Washington today going to the offices of 100 senators, and promising them something in return for their support.

I will refer you back to what I said... suppose a bill comes up... corp or group of them that lobbyist represents doesn't want that bill to pass.
Suppose its an energy bill. So Lobbyist goes to the people in the Senate energy subcommittee ( which has a total of 17 senators on it and that's one of the larger subcomittes its often only 8 or 9 people) all he has to do is convince a few of them in the committee ( particularly the chairman ) to kill the bill and its done.

 

[Master PO]

I will refer you back to what I said... suppose a bill comes up... corp or group of them that lobbyist represents doesn't want that bill to pass.
Suppose its an energy bill. So Lobbyist goes to the people in the Senate energy subcommittee ( which has a total of 17 senators on it and that's one of the larger subcomittes its often only 8 or 9 people) all he has to do is convince a few of them in the committee ( particularly the chairman ) to kill the bill and its done.

you are not understanding something here.

the senator is not FREE to vote/ make decision on his own, he must vote and do what his state legislature tells him to do, that is why the senate before the 17th is a non collective body, the senate today because it is elected by the people is collective.

 

[SocialD]

you are not understanding something here.

the senator is not FREE to vote/ make decision on his own, he must vote and do what his state legislature tells him to do, that is why the senate before the 17th is a non collective body, the senate today because it is elected by the people is collective.

I am understanding. you are saying that if they were appointed by the state legislature they would have to do what the legislature said instead of what the people said.
However, the state legislature is beholden to the people in their state yes? and so is the national senator right? that's who elects both of them.

So we have pre 17 in which the senator had to do what their state legislature wanted ( or was supposed to ) and the state legislature was supposed to do what the people who elected them wanted.
And today we just have the senator that is supposed to do what the people from their state want.
I just see this as arriving at the same thing.
If the senator doesn't do what their people want then their people should note re-elect them. same repercussion as before.

 

[Master PO]

I am understanding. you are saying that if they were appointed by the state legislature they would have to do what the legislature said instead of what the people said.

However, the state legislature is beholden to the people in their state yes? and so is the national senator right? that's who elects both of them.

So we have pre 17 in which the senator had to do what their state legislature wanted ( or was supposed to ) and the state legislature was supposed to do what the people who elected them wanted.
And today we just have the senator that is supposed to do what the people from their state want.
I just see this as arriving at the same thing.
If the senator doesn't do what their people want then their people should note re-elect them. same repercussion as before.

pre 17th the senators are representatives of the state governments, not the people, the people get their representation from the house of representatives.

the house is for the people, that is why it referred to as the "peoples house"

the senate is for the state government representation this is how the state governments protect their state powers from federal usurpation, it is a check and balance of the constitution

the senate is barred from spending money per the constitution, because only the peoples representatives can spend the people's money

 

[SocialD]

pre 17th the senators are representatives of the state governments, not the people, the people get their representation from the house of representatives.

the house is for the people, that is why it referred to as the "peoples house"

the senate is for the state government representation this is how the state governments protect their state powers from federal usurpation, it is a check and balance of the constitution

the senate is barred from spending money per the constitution, because only the peoples representatives can spend the people's money

I think you are confusing initiating a spending bill with spending money but putting that aside .. since its not what we are talking about.. that doesn't change what I said about lobbyists and senators.
In both cases its the constituency of the state they represent to which they ultimately responsible.. either directly as now.. or indirectly through their state legislature as before.

 

[Master PO]

I think you are confusing initiating a spending bill with spending money but putting that aside .. since its not what we are talking about.. that doesn't change what I said about lobbyists and senators.
In both cases its the constituency of the state they represent to which they ultimately responsible.. either directly as now.. or indirectly through their state legislature as before.

sorry but you are wrong, you should read the federalist 62 and 63, and its proves what i have said on why the government is constructed as it is, which is a mixed government

the house= people

senate = states


All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

 

[SocialD]

sorry but you are wrong, you should read the federalist 62 and 63, and its proves what i have said on why the government is constructed as it is, which is a mixed government

the house= people

senate = states


All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

I only see in those to papers that them saying that corruption would require an extra step to become corrupt. that's the only thing I can see that really applies to what we are talking about.
Lets remember one more thing also. these are the federalist papers... not the constitution itself. they are not in every way the same.

 

[Master PO]

I only see in those to papers that them saying that corruption would require an extra step to become corrupt. that's the only thing I can see that really applies to what we are talking about.
Lets remember one more thing also. these are the federalist papers... not the constitution itself. they are not in every way the same.

the federalist 62 and 63 why is the senate is there and what it does.

you must have missed the part of "the collective capacity of the people is excluded" because of the senate

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Voter ID laws are restrictive and yet these whackass right to bear arms restrictions aren't?

**** hypocrites.

 

[SocialD]

the federalist 62 and 63 why is the senate is there and what it does.

you must have missed the part of "the collective capacity of the people is excluded" because of the senate

I was thinking you might refer to that. What you might be missing is that Hamilton and or Madison is referring to the comparison of Athens and Sparta's government models to what they propose to be Americas.
here is the line --
"The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the administration of the FORMER. "

So they are saying that Athens and Sparta excluded the collective capacity of the people.