Civics Your thoughts on Congress for my college paper

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by SoCal09, Dec 1, 2009.

  1. SoCal09

    SoCal09 Monkey++

    Do you believe that the United States Congress should be composed of equal numbers of men and women, as well as members from different racial or ethnic groups in proportion to their population in the United States?

    I know where I stand...just curious as to what yall think..
  2. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Good luck with quotas is all I can say.
  3. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Per the constitution, there are no specifics to be represented by race, creed, gender, or color...only population. And to this, it is absolutely critical to point out that we are all AMERICANS first. These petty dividing lines are tactics of tyrants; to "Balkanize" the people and therefore make it easier to control them. Well, our republic was founded on the principle of the PEOPLE leading their GOVERNMENT first -if the government ends up leading, then the people will certainly have to follow, and this is not indicative of a free nation. The constitution was established to limit government; to keep it within the confines of its boundaries. Great care must be taken to ensure that it never expands beyond what is absolutely necessary in order for our LIMITED government to function.

    And so, I tell you that representation can occur quite well as the limiting documents already outline. There is no need to exacerbate the issue and create a complex system of representation due to the inherent fact that all People are created equal.

    The oaths which our servants have sworn have been broken. Our republic has long since been buried in the annals of history forgotten, and the constitution is just a piece of paper to be placed on display in the corporate dominated marketplace. This is our crime, and this is what must change.
  4. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Read Uninted Consequences by John Ross. This questions is ****ing joke when it comes to the constitution. Treason is the best name for what you seek to find!
  5. RightHand

    RightHand Been There, Done That RIP 4/15/21 Moderator Moderator Emeritus Founding Member

    My response to this is similar to my feeling about the proposed, and subsequently failed, Equal Right Amendment. As a female, I supported the "idea" that no one, employers in particular, could discriminate against me because of my gender. However, I also felt, and continue to feel, that if my success comes from legislation rather than talent and hard work, it would be no success at all. By circumstance and by choice, I have always worked in male dominated industries. I have been paid less for equal work and have had to learn more and work harder to gain respect for my acquired knowledge. Still, when the income and the respect was finally mine, I knew that I had earned it and for that, it was a sweeter victory than any I could have known if I had advanced as a result of the ERA or quotas. On the flip side of the coin, there have been some distinct advantages to being a woman in a man's world and any woman who denies that fact is being untruthful.
  6. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Racism??? Affirmitive action???Quotas? Representatives should be elected on their merits by their constituents not quotas. Whos' to stipulate to some district, you must elect a blind asian lesbian female or lose your seat in congress. If they are a district of blind asian lesbian females so be it. But the people represented choose; not the agenda ofsome corrupt govt!!. I feel the sameway re muslims, if a muslim district wants to elect a muslim representative, in America that should be fine.
  7. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    yes, but i dont think quotas are the way to go here. many social rights issues can have solutions imposed upon the populace from above. this isn't one of them.
  8. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    I would really like to know who you think is supposed to have the upper hand, the government or the people, and why you think so.
  9. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    the people, because all beings capable of thought have an inherent right to self determination. "the government" isn't really an independent entity at all but merely a mechanism through which one group of people oppresses another. It, therefore has no inherent rights whatsoever.
  10. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    One then must ask about the core of democratic government principles -- N.B. "democratic" as vs. ------
  11. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    Excellent. Then how can you say "many social rights issues can have solutions imposed upon the populace from above"?

    Excellent, also. And again, how can the "above" impose solutions?
    because although social inequality is principally a byproduct of government, there are occasionally situations in which it can remove that inequality much more quickly then might the citizenry itself. the end of slavery would be a good example, as would the end of racist laws barring african-americans from voting. both those increased democratic participation in society even though they ran counter to public opinion at the time.

    Exactly so. Thus, if there are social issues solved by imposition from above, there is obviously an oppressive motive.

    likely so.

    regarding the main subject of this thread, i think a possible soultion to the under representation of minorities in congress would be to switich form geopraphical representation to purportional representation(perhaps only in the house of representatives?). that would bring representation more in line with demographics and as a bonus make 3rd parties a much more viable proposition. the remainder of the gap then would then be closed by broadening oppertunities for education for the undrclasses and convincing people that voting is worthwhile. no direct government fiddle faddeling required.
  12. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Back to SoCal09's question. Don't meddle with apportionment based on subsets of the population. Building coalitions from that sort of fragmentation will complicate the process beyond what we already have. Brokor nailed it in his second paragraph above.

    P.S. - I moved the thread into the civics subforum.
  13. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    It is unclear how a government produces inequality,

    principally by enforcing private property laws.

    If it indeed a byproduct of government, it must be so because the electorate wants it to be so. Clearly, if the electorate didn't want it in the first place, the government has gone outside its charter.

    the electorate's right to self determination ends precisely when then begin to infringe upon others right to self determination.

    Not at all a good example for several reasons. One, those racist laws were simple codification of what society wanted at the time of enactment in those states that wanted them. Other states didn't have those restraints on civic participation. That is, their representatives made it the way the electorate wanted in those states. That specific case required years of debate before it was even recognized. I add that before any reversal could occur, the government, selected by the people, must have been selected based on the representative's agreement with the electing body's wants. Bear in mind that the Civil War was over state's rights, not slavery.

    the Civil War not being over states rights argument rings rather hollow. do you think there would have been a war if there wasn't slavery? if there was, im certain the south would have been victorious rather quickly.

    Unless I am massively confused, that is exactly what we have. Gerrymandering aside, the House is populated in proportion to the electorate.
    proportional representation in the same sense that the german bundestag has. everyone nationally votes for their party of choice and seats are distributed to parties based on the percentage of the vote that they receive, as opposed to a series of winner take all electoral districts.

    The logic of that escapes me completely, the more so since what you've asked for already exists. Third parties cannot exist without support. To get support, there has to be exposure to the electorate. That takes lucre, and lots of it. (Another question for another time.)

    well, with winner take all districts there is a very strong incentive to support whichever of the big two you hate the least. smaller parties have no hope of winning a seat unless they happen to all live in the same place. if third parties have a legitimate chance of winning seats, money and support will be forthcoming.

    Those are functions undertaken by the government in the electorate's name. If the electorate wants it, the representatives, acting in their name, should get it done.
    quite, but id consider it an issue wholly separate from the one of representation in government.

    Voting earns you the right to bitch or cheer. Otherwise, siddown and shuddup, your silence has given consent.
    i disagree. not voting can be as much a statment as voting, as long as it isnt motivated by simple indifference. imo, all ballots should have a "none of the above" option for just this sort of situation.

    no quotas or mandate nonsense. just some(admittedly large) procedural changes.
  14. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    Quote Iivan:

    "Voting earns you the right to bitch or cheer. Otherwise, siddown and shuddup, your silence has given consent.

    i disagree. not voting can be as much a statment as voting, as long as it isnt motivated by simple indifference. imo, all ballots should have a "none of the above" option for just this sort of situation. Unquote

    Nawp---b.s..overpressure light[siren][siren][BSf] just came on!:...If a tree dissents in the forest and no one hears it is it effective dissent.?? If you pout in the corner and don't vote; nobody hears it.You may feel self-righteous and be sitting it out for a cause; but have no illusion.You don't matter.
    Unless you are well beyond voting( "democratic change" and into armed "revolution "in which case the "increased democratic participation" you like so much is nill at the end of an AK bayonet.

    "not voting can be as much a statment as voting, as long as it isnt motivated by simple indifference."

    That is an internal, finely nuanced (subtle) difference like most of the subtle hi-level political arguments you present. With all its the fine gradations and facets. It all sounds fine from an armchair over a brandy and cigar polite discussion; when in the REALWORLD:
    There is nothing subltle about a POL POT, THE USSR OR PRC: THE PARTY TAKES THE BEST FOR ITS TOP FUNCTIONARIES and the vaunted people get the scraps or punishment by the party.

    Internalize all these subtle gradations you want but outside your argument these nuances are lost on Stalin and the like : "The strong take power and keep it while using slogans and grand ideas as the opiate to keep the hungry masses from rushing the kremlin.

  15. SLugomist

    SLugomist Monkey++

    The idea of representation by sex, or race is BS. We are all Americans and representation is for Americans, not one type or class of person. To classify or require equal by sex or race is in itself sexist and racist.

    In the past immigrants did anything necessary to be an American, changed names, learned our language, etc. etc. which is where the melting pot came from. If the people don't "melt" then we have more division and being an "american" has become diluted as the new immigrants are not americans, but mexican americans, russian americans, iraqi amercians, african americans. You're either just an american or not. If not then you don't get represented in the government.

    Hey SOCAL not that I or we don't mind doing your thinking (homework) for you but, what's your opinion on your question?
  16. SoCal09

    SoCal09 Monkey++

    Well your not doing my homework, as I stated with my question I already have my opinion.

    My opinion is that we can only have perfect representation by allowing unbiast opinion. We set up law of affirmative action in order to balance society, but in my opinion, though our government was trying to be "fair", it only induces a larger gap in our races and/or sexes. I believe that the best for a job should get that job, without a favor in race or sex. I also understand though, that we will never have a perfectly unbiast society. So my "hope" is that one day we will reach that maturity, but it is unlikely to ever happen, at least not before I'm dead.

    Even still, I will stick to what I believe, the best man/woman for the job should get it.
  17. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    DUDE here's an extra few points on your paper: "UNBIASED" :) no offense meant...
  18. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Freedoms are suffer-able. There is no perfect society. And the smallest government is the best government if we are talking about including liberty. If we are speaking "SIm-City" logistics, well, I guess it pretty much doesn't matter, does it?

    To sum up for your paper:

    Point 1 - We had a limited minarchy, a republic which was ran by the People. That no longer exists since we now work for the private corporations, also known as your government.

    Point 2 - All citizens of this nation are to be viewed as being created equal, as outlined by the founding documents.

    Point 3 - Divisions in creed, color, race, gender, and sexuality are means by which the political arm of government can control the population and keep the People balkanized. Representation on the house floor will never be equal; it will only serve the purposes of the corporate empire.

    Point 4 - If the Mexicans keep coming over into America at the rate they are now, in another generation your suggestion to obtain representation according to race would grant them the majority in several states, making this the United States of Mexico.
  19. Ivan

    Ivan Monkey++

    not voting does not entail silence. if things have gotten so bad that theres no way for you to cast a vote for anyone you find even vaguely acceptable then its time to find other ways to make your point. rallies, protests, petitions, general strikes, various acts of civil disobedience, etc.

    I don't see why this is necessarily true. the american revolution was an armed revolt, but surely you wouldn't say that it reduced democratic participation in society?

    theres a time for making nuanced points and a time for screaming into a megaphone and flinging a molotov.[dunno]
  20. Tango3

    Tango3 Aimless wanderer

    I'm sorry;Mom says I can't play outside anymore, I'm have extreme problems ( my own) separating anything you post from your avatar,and your avowed support for smashing apart the country to fulfill a leftist ideology; hence viewing whatever topic from the pov of communist society oppression even if its not the topic.

    "the american revolution was an armed revolt, but surely you wouldn't say that it reduced democratic participation in society?
    Poor example: The American revolution was fought to throw off existing tyranny, ofcourse "participation increased". We went from non representative to a representative form of govt.
    Your communist revolutions are fought to replace the current governments; tyrannical or not and intstall An opressor.So participation does not necessarily increase.

    Excuse me. I'm going to recuse myself from further wordplay..
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary