Violating the 17th Amendment, No Respect For The Constitution...

The 60 vote followed by a simple majority vote is two votes for the same law. This is clearly a violation of the 17th Amendment and the “one-Senator one-vote rule” as stated:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures."

SHALL HAVE ONE VOTE NOT TWO!!!!!

thehill.com...

I'm not a big fan of the 60 vote rule, but that Hill article is outrageous.

American House of Cowboys? They don't even hide their disdain for fellow Americans anymore. Freaking elitist dribble...

a reply to: dfnj2015

The Hill article didn't mention that gun background checks are a violation of the first amendment to free speech. If someone is so dangerous they cannot have a firearm without expected to be using it in a violent crime, they need to be in prison, not on the street. Only people who have abused their rights to firearms or committed a sufficiently violent crime should have their firearm taken away. But even that requires an amendment to the constitution, which absolutely in no way makes exceptions to people with felony convictions having their firearms taken away.

Citizenship may sometimes involve waiving certain rights in return for certain security. However, that cannot be the case unless without an amendment to the US constitution. For example, the worst amendment in the US constitution did nothing to outlaw slavery but in fact specifically enabled it in saying "slavery... except as a punishment for crime... shall exist within the United States". So it was already a natural right to not be a slave, but then this amendment came along and specifically made it okay to be a slave "as a punishment for a crime". Quite disgraceful, but unsurprising because the same ingrates who desecrated the constitution then proceeded to get hundreds of thousands of American lives slaughtered for the stated reason of disallowing states to leave the union with or without slavery in the words of Lincoln, the most bloody tyrant in the history of the USA who didn't batt an eye before imprisoning journalists and otherwise spitting all of the US constitution.

Nobody I know has ever bothered to lift a finger to show that background checks do something to improve anything whatsoever. All they know is the checks give them a sense of power and force peons to acknowledge their authority. They don't give a damn if background checks accomplish anything. The Hill couldn't care less. The moment I heard about background checks being implemented I looked at the studies. The studies showed, contrary to all common sense whatsoever, that MENTALLY INSANE PEOPLE TENDED TO BE SAFER with firearms. So obviously what actually works is irrelevant to thugs at the Hill who want nothing more than self-righteous power and indignation of the "lessers" . Pathetic! Sad. Disgusting. A real downer on humanity in general. We are not a civilization if we cannot bother to lift a finger to find out what works and what doesn't with preventing crimes. No, this is not a civilization, but a joke run by a band of thugs like the authors of The Hill.

The Senate was intended to be a braking mechanism for the House of Representatives. The State legislatures would send people to DC that would take a look at what the People's Representatives were doing and shut down any legislation that they felt the States could not afford. This is what also gave the Federal Government the Supremacy Clause over the State Governments, because the Supremacy Clause was written with the assumption that the majority of State governments would have found agreement with the legislation of the People's representatives.

Our Congress was intended to look out for the interested of their constituents and legislatures, not national party agendas.

I for one would like to see the 17th Amendment repealed.

a reply to: dfnj2015

what an atrocious article.

Im glad we have a 60 vote rule. We are NOT a democracy. We are a constitutional republic with states rights. What makes Wyoming, as an entity, any less valuable that California? If they were, what would compel the lesser populated states to retain partnership within the Union?

Whoever wrote that article is either a propagandist trying to sell the lie that we are a democracy, or an idiot who doesn't know better. Either way, they are worthy of being ignored. Because it sounds to me like the wolves are upset that they can't vote to eat the sheep.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: dfnj2015

what an atrocious article.

Im glad we have a 60 vote rule. We are NOT a democracy. We are a constitutional republic with states rights. What makes Wyoming, as an entity, any less valuable that California? If they were, what would compel the lesser populated states to retain partnership within the Union?

Whoever wrote that article is either a propagandist trying to sell the lie that we are a democracy, or an idiot who doesn't know better. Either way, they are worthy of being ignored. Because it sounds to me like the wolves are upset that they can't vote to eat the sheep.

Well said Sr.

I wish I were able to express myself so eloquently.