- JD Barleycorn
- 09-30-2013, 08:47 AM
I think he hit a nerve with the lie. It was the lie of someone who thinks they are a mainstream media reporter. So clever, so smug, so dishonest! CJ has been exposed!
- lostincypress
- 09-30-2013, 09:42 AM
Why did the Constitution provide for THREE BRANCHES of government? Maybe the House is NOT representative as the total vote for the House if totaled nationwide showed a 1.3 Million vote majority for Democrats Can we all say GERRYMANDERING. To control the House the Democrats would now have to win the total House popular vote by more than 7 %. Why would the electorate give the President a second term with a 51% to 47% victory if they were so opposed to the Affordable Care Act? Why, if public opinion supports immigration reform and stricter background checks would the representatives in the House ignore the will of the people?
- CJ7
- 09-30-2013, 10:51 AM
- JD Barleycorn
- 10-01-2013, 03:53 AM
Still bothering you isn't it?
Why did the Constitution provide for THREE BRANCHES of government? You didn't answer your own question. You just went onto something else. Here is the answer; the founders believed that the people should be represented by officials with short terms who represented 50,000 citizens each. That was the house. Now the House was frozen at 435 almost a century ago so now they represent more people. The Senate was supposed to represent the states and each state should choose their own senators in a way consistant with what the state wanted. Most were chosen by the state legislature and others were chosen by the governor. In 1913 the Progressive moment decided that more democracy (which the founders hated) was needed so they passed the 17th amendment making ALL senators (stripping the states of the right) were elected by popular vote. This is not what the founders wanted. The Executive branch would represent the country in foreign affairs and military matters. The Judicial branch would examine laws and decide if they met consitutional muster. They were never intended to change laws which in effect wrote laws. Maybe the House is NOT representative as the total vote for the House if totaled nationwide showed a 1.3 Million vote majority for Democrats Can we all say GERRYMANDERING. Maybe you should stop complaining and work on voter turnout. Seems like you can't get your people to the polls. Then again why should a liberal vote in California, Illinois, or New York. The democrat is going to win anyway. To control the House the Democrats would now have to win the total House popular vote by more than 7 %. Why would the electorate give the President a second term with a 51% to 47% victory if they were so opposed to the Affordable Care Act? Almost 30% of Obamacare was not even written when they voted on it and more was written after the election. This law about to go into effect has never been voted on by anyone. Why, if public opinion supports immigration reform and stricter background checks would the representatives in the House ignore the will of the people? This is why the founders set up a republic. The people would be represented by people who would be the professionals who had the time to learn all about the topic. I am sure that on September 12th, 2001 a law could have been easily passed outlawing Islam and rounding up all muslims but our Constitution (and elected representatives) protect the minority. Sometimes (not this time) the people are wrong when they are forced to move quickly but this is not the case here. They have had over three years to learn about what was voted on by deceit, bribery, and corruption. They don't like it.
Why did the Constitution provide for THREE BRANCHES of government? You didn't answer your own question. You just went onto something else. Here is the answer; the founders believed that the people should be represented by officials with short terms who represented 50,000 citizens each. That was the house. Now the House was frozen at 435 almost a century ago so now they represent more people. The Senate was supposed to represent the states and each state should choose their own senators in a way consistant with what the state wanted. Most were chosen by the state legislature and others were chosen by the governor. In 1913 the Progressive moment decided that more democracy (which the founders hated) was needed so they passed the 17th amendment making ALL senators (stripping the states of the right) were elected by popular vote. This is not what the founders wanted. The Executive branch would represent the country in foreign affairs and military matters. The Judicial branch would examine laws and decide if they met consitutional muster. They were never intended to change laws which in effect wrote laws. Maybe the House is NOT representative as the total vote for the House if totaled nationwide showed a 1.3 Million vote majority for Democrats Can we all say GERRYMANDERING. Maybe you should stop complaining and work on voter turnout. Seems like you can't get your people to the polls. Then again why should a liberal vote in California, Illinois, or New York. The democrat is going to win anyway. To control the House the Democrats would now have to win the total House popular vote by more than 7 %. Why would the electorate give the President a second term with a 51% to 47% victory if they were so opposed to the Affordable Care Act? Almost 30% of Obamacare was not even written when they voted on it and more was written after the election. This law about to go into effect has never been voted on by anyone. Why, if public opinion supports immigration reform and stricter background checks would the representatives in the House ignore the will of the people? This is why the founders set up a republic. The people would be represented by people who would be the professionals who had the time to learn all about the topic. I am sure that on September 12th, 2001 a law could have been easily passed outlawing Islam and rounding up all muslims but our Constitution (and elected representatives) protect the minority. Sometimes (not this time) the people are wrong when they are forced to move quickly but this is not the case here. They have had over three years to learn about what was voted on by deceit, bribery, and corruption. They don't like it.