Opinion The Framers of the Constitution did not agree on everything but they did agree on this...

[shunyata]

Very fancy words for "we will stymie reform."

"In selecting an appropriate visual symbol of the Senate in its founding period, one might consider an anchor, a fence, or a saucer. Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution's framers considered the Senate to be the great "anchor" of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea."

U.S. Senate: Senate Created

1787: Senate Created -- September 17, 1787

www.senate.gov

So it was George himself who allegedly called it a cooling saucer, but yeah. Stymie is a fun word.

 

[Sinister]

The 3/5ths rule isn't an issue of authoritarian-ism. I can disagree with the institution of slavery and understand the unique problem it presented in the late 1700s for a country that wanted to live up to the ideal that all men were created equal. And compromise, which is what the 3/5ths rule is, isn't authoritarian. It's the opposite.

Your premise that less direct democracy means more authoritarian kinds of ignores the definition of authoritarian. And it wasn't designed to protect the wealthy. It was designed to slow down the ability of public opinion to yo-yo government decisions. Something that is obvious whenever you listen to a group of people try to make decisions on the fly and then wake up 2 weeks later and want to undo everything they just decided to do.

But this is hard to discuss if we're going to look at modern opinions on subjects and then use them to judge the decisions of people made 300 years ago when those subjects weren't relevant.

Nah I know what the definition of authoritarianism is. And the more you remove democratic means of governance, the more authoritarian it is, because it's no longer the people making decisions, it's a 3rd-hand mechanism that is somewhat effected by the will of the people, until they decide to ignore the will of the people, then they can make up rules to stifle the changes the people voted for. And I cant see arguing a compromise on an institution expressly enacted to deny the humanity of other men for economic reasons being an integral part of our early Governing charter can be determined to be engaging in fair and free Governance. It's not merely the mechanism of slavery itself, it's that it was specifically included because of the interests of who needed to agree to the Union.

It was definitely designed to protect the wealthy. Hamilton's whole appeal of the Federalist Papers was to NY Elites, because without NY the idea would have likely died on the vine and we'd be living in a collection of small Countries. Or maybe someone would have come up with a better plan. I've read some of the letters between the Founding Fathers and adjacent parties, especially at the times of the small rebellions that popped up. They consistently expressed sentiment against the ACTUAL will of the people, while realizing they needed the citizenry to consent. But the threat expressed in their correspondence was mostly the idea that their view of capitalism would be in ill-favor. Its not an accident that we gained our independence, and then it took a couple hundred years before we granted voting rights to all citizens, and it took civil unrest to get it for women, black people, and Native Americans.

Democracy and anti-democracy were definitely relevant 300 years ago, in fact they were central issues. We dont need to suppose the notions of the Framers, they weren't shy about them.

 

[Sinister]

"In selecting an appropriate visual symbol of the Senate in its founding period, one might consider an anchor, a fence, or a saucer. Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution's framers considered the Senate to be the great "anchor" of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea."

U.S. Senate: Senate Created

1787: Senate Created -- September 17, 1787

www.senate.gov

So it was George himself who allegedly called it a cooling saucer, but yeah. Stymie is a fun word.

Madison's words on tyranny of the majority are often misrepresented. Madison spoke out against any tyranny, regardless of who it was that was trying to enact it:

"In the classic writing of American political thought, Federalist 10, James Madison argued that the new constitutional republic would “break and control the violence of faction.”

And by a faction, Madison meant “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

Madison believed that factions could arise from “different opinions concerning religion, concerning government,” but that all factions, including the most prevalent kind of faction of “those who hold and those who are without property,” are “sown in the nature of man.”

Madison would absolutely consider MAGA a "faction"...and their means to procure power as attempts at tyranny. Far right pundits like to say he warned specifically of "tyranny of the majority"...because that's what a person with unpopular views WOULD say.

The Senate is quite undemocratic as it delegates power to stop legislation to very small percentages of the population. The Senate represents the States, not the people. And when you factor in the butcheres voting districts in this Country, you end up with what we have. Unpopular Senators on power who vote against popular legislation (even in their own States), who also become influenced by moneyed interests. The reason this structure exists is because small States threatened to leave the Union. The concession they wanted was equal Senators as large States. And for all the "taxation is theft" libertarians out there, this also results in the small states receiving monumentally out-sized Federal subsidies. I think Federal spending like in Wyomong is 40% more than it is for Cali, and the median income is the same, at least as of 2022 it was.

This was designed this way because the Framers were willing to sacrifice democracy to actualize the Union, and Hamilton specifically sought to yoke the greed of the capitalists of the day to power the US to become an Empire, which happened

 

[jefferz]

Guns removal actually does work opposite.
The same Alaska in old times had de facto 0 knife and guns control in schools and still might had 0 accident in school during decade. This reality will come in mindset of society when they will get that morale levels and character are above Law. Always. They should cope with this and deal with reality like this. Otherwise might see smiling guest with submachine gun demanding something and telling that he and his friends wants to get this or this otherwise you will die tonight.

I think that CCW permits should get issued after exams in shooting range, exams about law in area and first stuff : first aid.
One from things why I a bit support U.S reps is their opinion about CCW permits....while I don't think that these are panacea at all.

All gun purchasers should be required to take a hunters safety type course berfore they're allowed to own one. How to store a gun, how to handle it, etc could all be covered.

 

[SandisLL]

All gun purchasers should be required to take a hunters safety type course berfore they're allowed to own one. How to store a gun, how to handle it, etc could all be covered.

We do have more complex exams for hunters rather than for CCW permits.
They are demanding on top of stuff required for CCW permit to do additional exams in form of proctored exams in person like to answer in fast mode survey type papers with laws about hunting and to do hardest stuff: in form like proctored exam you should answer questions what kind of animals and birds you see on pics and you should do this quickly.

For CCW permit it is good reason proof + first aid course + shooting range exam + to prove that you have safe type stuff + ofc papers that you don't have criminal record & don't have record about mental problems [ they does also cross checking in databases anyway ] and paper that you had at least basic level h2h training.
For hunters on top of this all is this " exam " about hunting laws and this torture with animals and birds pictures. Hunters does have different papers and if you have CCW permit this doesn't makes you eliglible to act as Hunter if you don't have such paper.
Exam too is different, for hunters it will be smoothbore in shooting range or rifle ( depends from type of permits ), for CCW it will be ( usually) pistol, while they does have rights to ask you to use revolver in exam. It is EU, while country does have nickname Texas No2 in EU.

 

[SandisLL]

For CCW permit I had also to show in person that I do have safe type stuff where to store toy. First time their team was 3 persons and this was ~15 minutes long visit. Next session was lesser than 5 minutes with 2 visitors....

 

[El Panteron]

This demagogue wouldn't come from a communist family and push for crazy things like removing free expression, guns from legal citizens, or after years of failure, continue to push for a policy of mass immigration?

Would they?

After such bloody wars for freedom, would our forefathers even have considered such a possibility?

God I wish Harris was even half as leftie as you think she is