undeterred
(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:
|
SteppingRazor
(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! |
undeterred
(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.
|
SteppingRazor
(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.
|
undeterred
(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. |
SteppingRazor
(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.
|
Jersey Devil
(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.
|
Arkana
(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:
|
damntexdem
(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.
|
iconocrastic
(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. |
JVS
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-15-09 05:24 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
12. We could use a new one |
polmaven
(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!
|
JVS
(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
|
JVS
(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)
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:45 AM
Response to Original message |