the reason we tolerate the Senate is because we're used to it. that's it. there is no other reason. it transparently doesn't serve to make the federal government more rational or effective. it just reduces and concentrates the surface area of corruption. it's a vulnerability.
-
-
Replying to @danlistensto @AlexGodofsky
also because brute forcing constitutional change would sort of wreck the constitutional compact and its just not worth it for those who would expect first order wins "hahahaha finally proportionate representation over a smoking crater"
2 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I don't think any faction should expect to get what they want out of a major change to the constitution. I think it should be changed because it's broken.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @Aelkus and
also, the filibuster is a parliamentary procedural rule that managed to find a loophole to exploit in the way congressional debate is conducted. it was prominent, but not a fundamental structure defined by the constitution.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @Aelkus and
the underlying problem being the constitutional structures defined to control the appointment of high stakes positions (particularly supreme court justices) was broken because the Senate is broken.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danlistensto @Aelkus and
I don't understand the point of the word "broken" unless you're suggesting that it in the past it used to function correctly as designed but now (or recently) stopped doing so. When did it work correctly, in your opinion; and why did it stop?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Bugs_Meany @Aelkus and
it never functioned correctly. it was broken at inception. the Senate is one of the reasons legal slavery persisted all the way until 1863 and it caused absurd distortions like states being admitted in pairs (1 free and 1 slave) in the antebellum period.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @Bugs_Meany and
what do you think wouldve happened to laws wrt slavery without the senate earlier in the union when southern states dominated
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @eigenrobot @Bugs_Meany and
no union. multiple nations on the continent.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
that also seems bad how long do you think southern slavery would have persisted then
-
-
Replying to @eigenrobot @Bugs_Meany and
shorter. they either would have been outright attacked by an abolitionist coalition (which is close to what did happen, historically) or they would have folded to economic competition much sooner (which is plausible given industrialization in the 19th century).
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @danlistensto @Bugs_Meany and
naw separate nations wouldve had less friction than one nation with conflicting laws
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.