6 ms·

> We'll see if the founders concept of a union of states is worth as much as it was proclaimed to be. States can't issue their own currency, they're all going

> We'll see if the founders concept of a union of states is worth as much as it was proclaimed to be. States can't issue their own currency, they're all going wherever the nation goes on this one.

themafia 6mo ago
> States can't issue their own currency Of course they can. You're pointing out that federal law currently prohibits it? I already understood that to be the case when I made my point. > they're all going wherever the nation goes on this one. Unless they all collectively decide on a different course of action. The constitution was left amendable. It has been done several times already. A simple option is to repeal the 17th and to return to a state assembly controlled federal senate.
- NewJazz 6mo ago
  How would that benefit anyone?... The core feature of the senate that makes it so indefensible is how it assigns power to states, not people. That relationship cannot be amended, per article 5 of the us constitution.
  - themafia 6mo ago
    It's far easier to change a state government than it is the federal government. The states used to be able to recall Senators if they failed to do their jobs correctly; as determined by the elected body within the state. It's simply a single level indirection of Democracy. The House of Representatives is direct. This was intentional. What's "indefensible" about this? And you can amend how the body is elected; hell, you can amend how the president is elected. Also Article V provides for a state "constitutional convention" as a process for initiating changes, bypassing both the Senate and the House.
    - jasomill 6mo ago
      For that matter, you could amend the Constitution to change the process for amending the Constitution, even to eliminate the possibility of future amendments altogether.
      - mnicky 6mo ago
        This might be unconstitutional?
    - NewJazz 6mo ago
      I was specifically referencing this clause: no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate You know, the clause that comes right after the whole "can't do anything about slavery right now" clause. I consider this feature of the federation to be indefensible because it deprives the rights of people to equal suffrage, to the benefit of states. States should serve the rights and interests of their citizens, not the reverse.

> We'll see if the founders concept of a union of states is worth as much as it was proclaimed to be. States can't issue their own currency, they're all going wherever the nation goes on this one.

themafia 6mo ago

> States can't issue their own currency Of course they can. You're pointing out that federal law currently prohibits it? I already understood that to be the case when I made my point. > they're all going wherever the nation goes on this one. Unless they all collectively decide on a different course of action. The constitution was left amendable. It has been done several times already. A simple option is to repeal the 17th and to return to a state assembly controlled federal senate.

NewJazz 6mo ago
How would that benefit anyone?... The core feature of the senate that makes it so indefensible is how it assigns power to states, not people. That relationship cannot be amended, per article 5 of the us constitution.
- themafia 6mo ago
  It's far easier to change a state government than it is the federal government. The states used to be able to recall Senators if they failed to do their jobs correctly; as determined by the elected body within the state. It's simply a single level indirection of Democracy. The House of Representatives is direct. This was intentional. What's "indefensible" about this? And you can amend how the body is elected; hell, you can amend how the president is elected. Also Article V provides for a state "constitutional convention" as a process for initiating changes, bypassing both the Senate and the House.
  - jasomill 6mo ago
    For that matter, you could amend the Constitution to change the process for amending the Constitution, even to eliminate the possibility of future amendments altogether.
    - mnicky 6mo ago
      This might be unconstitutional?
  - NewJazz 6mo ago
    I was specifically referencing this clause: no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate You know, the clause that comes right after the whole "can't do anything about slavery right now" clause. I consider this feature of the federation to be indefensible because it deprives the rights of people to equal suffrage, to the benefit of states. States should serve the rights and interests of their citizens, not the reverse.