AKA: Scott Brown (Republican candidate for Kennedy's Senate seat in MA),
That Senate seat does not belong to "the people." It belongs to the state of Massachusetts.
House seats belong to "the people."
Get it right you populist pandering dickwheel.
-SicEm
Last edited by SicEmBaylor; 1/12/2010 at 01:50 PM.
No, no...I'm pretty sure it belongs to the Kennedys.
"I'm going to request that you stop posting in this thread." - circa 2008
"Why does there have to be so much immature stuff on here?" - circa 2010
According to the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, it does belong to the people.Originally Posted by SicEmBaylor
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
'Splain please.
The 17th Amendment changed selection of Senators to popular vote. Are you just grumbling about the change from the original concept, or is there some other sense in which Senate seats "belong" to the state they represent, rather than its people?
I guess you could argue that since Senators aren't apportioned by population but rather by state, they aren't a popular house.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
I can't help that the 17th Amendment destroyed the proper balance of the states' interests and the interests of the people in Congress. I stand by the original document that came out of Philadelphia not the bastardized document we have today.
Aaaaand, their role and responsibilities didn't change with the amendment just who elects them.
So you don't recognize amendments made to the Constitution that were passed under the authority and procedure to do so under the Constitution, yet claim to honor the original text of the Constitution which provides such authority and procedure.
Congratulations. You've won the fatuous nonsense post of the day award.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
Even the Constitution isn't Constitution enough for SicEm anymore. He wants his grandpappy's Constitution where we knew who to trust with our decisions and to do our thinkin' for us.
SicEm, I hope you're OK with the 21st Amendment.
What about the first ten?
Ukraine: Not Our Fight.
More epicycles!
I don't like Constitutional amendments that upset the balance of the rest of the document. For example, I don't really think lowering the voting age to 18 is a great idea but it doesn't fundamentally interfere with the balance and structure of the document.
It's not that the amendment is illegitimate -- I just don't like it. There's nothing that says I have to like every amendment just because it was properly ratified.
HOWEVER, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments are illegitimate.
Uh, yeah, I'm a pretty big fan of the first 10.
Do the first 10 fundamentally change the structure of the rest of the document? Nope.
And, yes, I'm okay with the 21st.
Regardless of whether you like them or not, they're the supreme law of the land. According to the supreme law of the land, the seats in the Senate belong to the people, to be handed to whomever they please.
Similarly, you don't get to claim that slavery is legal because you don't like the 13th Amendment. Nor do you get to claim that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the states because you don't like the Fourteenth.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
Those are all fair points.
People that even give a **** about this kind of stuff - let alone know about it - must be people who have absolutely no fun, girlfriends, wife, or anything meaningful in their lives. They're probably lifelong students/geeks who have yellow pee stains on their tighty whities.
Am I wrong here people?
Getting back on topic from the first post, what EXACTLY is a "dickwheel"?
Yes. My tighty whities are stained multiple colors.
"The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental proceses that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked." INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) (Burger, C.J.)
Heh.
At least you are doing something with your knowledge and geekdom. Sicem? Not so much. Aspiring to being a full-time student forever with a head crammed full of useless political information is like nowheresville daddio.
Sh*t, NOW I feel bad. I have no intention of ever entering the legal profession, mainly (I'm not kidding) because I have no intention of seeing my dad throw himself off of a tall building, but I'm as well-read on "the books" as most 1L's. I'm smart and I get bored. What?
I guess now's as good a time as any to tell ya that I'm considering grad school in the fall, Dean. Student Forever!
the_ouskull
Skull=the most underrated poster in SoonerFans.com history. -- gdc, 09/05
skull makes people want to go sit in the corner and hang their heads in shame when he responds to their posts. -- birddog, 01/09
skull makes you feel like you are the dumbest motherf*cker on the planet... -- soonerinabilene, 08/09
My staff is getting tired of me making them read your posts. -- birddog, 10/09
As is pretty much always the case, I agree with Skull. -- A Sooner in Texas, 11/09
Yeah, except that you've got a ****ing job in the meantime Danny. And I didn't get my grad degree until 2000. I was 43 years old.
Posting Permissions
