Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why should Connecticut have 2 senators anyway?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 03:47 PM
Original message
Why should Connecticut have 2 senators anyway?
They're just an eensty beentsy little state... they should only get one Senator. That way New York or California could have 3.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 03:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah! At least one house of Congress should be based on state population!
Oh ... wait.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. States who consistently elect troublemakers
should forfeit their 2 Senator representation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. By that rationale, Connecticut would be way down the list.
First place would be Oklahoma or something. And besides, who gets to decide which senators are "troublemakers"? When Republicans are in charge, do they get to remove Bernie Sanders? After all, Vermont's just a tiny, little state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
undeterred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I guess tongue in cheek is a fail around here.
Never mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteppingRazor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. I know you're not being totally serious.
Or even, you know, serious at all. I'm just saying Joe's a pain in the neck, but he's hardly the worst thing in the Senate. Hell, Joe Lieberman's worth about 20 James Inhofes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jersey Devil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. lol, well at least today it is
Yep, sarcasm rarely works on an internet bulletin board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. If that were the case Massachusetts would have lost representation
a long time ago. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 05:14 PM
Response to Original message
7. Because the Constitution says so -- and also says that requirement cannot be amended.
Although it might be possible to first amend away the provision disallowing amendment of the equal representation by senators, then amending the latter. But there's no way the 13 smallest states would ratify, so it ain't going to happen.

Much easier to vote out LIEberman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iconocrastic Donating Member (627 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 05:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. We don't need no freakin' constitution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. We could use a new one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. We didn't have one for eight years....
Look how well THAT worked out!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #7
11. The constitution is outdated, and it isn't easy to vote out Lieberman because most of us have no...
vote in the election that puts him above us
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. There shouldn't even be a Senate. The bicameral legislature is a vestige of the House of Lords.
Or, if one insists on preserving a senate, it should be elected at the national level (like president is)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC