Government is biased? Take away immunity of elected officials and make those who do crime do the time, not pay the fine. And audit the living F out of their income sources and make every finance decision they make, personal and elected business, be transparent.
It is not a problem! It was perfection in our government structure at its finest. The entire point of the united states is self governance. The smaller direct representation of the people was the point, referred to as states rights. The federal government is supposed to stay out if peoples business. The less issues the federal government try to solve the more freedom people have. A large portion of the citizens don't understand this essential exclusively American ideal.
@@DavidHeffron78 that is why you have the freedom to move to another state. If the state you were in wasn't to your liking you have 49 other options. The point was you found people your beliefs and morals aligned with. Today people want to make every state the same.
Wait, but doesnt every state have exactly 2 senators BECAUSE the House of Representatives is based on population? So every state has an equal say in the senate, and large states have more say in the house... Meaning this guys a liar, complaining because his advantage in the house doesnt exist in the senate.
That was the point of the great compromise. We have two congresses because the authors of the constitution couldn't find any other way to solve the clustering problem.
And Harvard has an unbiased view of the world? Clean up your own house. And let’s talk about your 49 billion in endowments yet you still charge American citizens tuition.
I love how he gives examples of 1/2 of the legislative body, and gives a relatively weak example of how the Judicial branch "favors sparsely populated states" that this is somehow tantamount to the minority groups governing over the heavily populated states. Ummm really guy? Isn't the Executive branch election process based on a number of electors derived from the population of a state? Doesn't this mean that states with more population have more say over the executive branch? And what about the other half of the legislative body of government? Isn't that also based on the census' population numbers? It seems that the framers may have actually come up with a way to treat the minority groups and areas with at least some respect seeing as how the government is never supposed to be based on true majority rule. It's ALWAYS democrats that want to change something about how the country works down to its core whenever the numbers aren't in their favor. Court Packing, Making DC a state, forcing Judicial outcomes to replace legislation, the Democrats are the most corrupt group in the world even more so than the CCP.
@@DavidHeffron78 So, the people living in a rural town in South Dakota should live under the Laws / Rules voted for by the people in NYC. Is that the kind of one size fits all government you want?
I mean sure? But if you were to change America to a pure Democracy instead of a Republic then democrats would gain a huge advantage considering most of the populated areas in the country are democrat ran. The whole point of having a republic in the first place is so the needs of cities dont overrule the needs of the more rural areas. America is a MASSIVE country, to put it in perspective, itd be like - if the UK were able to dictate what laws/policies were enacted in Poland. The needs of the two places are entirely different, however simply because the UK has more people the needs of the UK would always be prioritised. This would also lead to the issue of politicians never bothering to get the support of Poland either, why bother when you can focus on the UK to get more votes? Its the same in America. No political system is perfect, Republics and Democracys both have flaws - but they each try to resolve seperate issues.
What a foolish professor. To amend the Constitution would take a two thirds vote of the Congress and then approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures. If my memory is correct. No way would it pass. This guy is just grandstanding
@@dannygolightly865. Anyone who knows the U.S. Constitution knows it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change which would require passage in Congress and what? I think two thirds of the states to ratify it. The smaller states would never ratify it and it would never pass Congress. The professor is just grandstanding in front of gullible students. Only a fool would believe this could be changed.
My question is why is it a problem if the more sparsely populated states are given more weight in some proceedings? The "less sparsely populated" states have hardly demonstrated any particular advantage in the wisdom of their governance. I would argue that the collective sanity level is higher in the less populated states (if only because folks who are less crowded together have way less stress in their lives). It's a classic big city/small town conflict, and i think the framers were wise to try to protect the small town common sense folks from their neurotic urban counterparts.
The Senate was suppose to represent the State's interests not the peoples. Get rid of the 17th amendment. Also get rid of the 2 party system and let one candidate from each well established party debate. Expand and stop trying to miss lead us with disingenuous statements.
Government is biased? Take away immunity of elected officials and make those who do crime do the time, not pay the fine. And audit the living F out of their income sources and make every finance decision they make, personal and elected business, be transparent.
It is not a problem! It was perfection in our government structure at its finest. The entire point of the united states is self governance. The smaller direct representation of the people was the point, referred to as states rights. The federal government is supposed to stay out if peoples business. The less issues the federal government try to solve the more freedom people have. A large portion of the citizens don't understand this essential exclusively American ideal.
It's the same problem in States.
@@DavidHeffron78 that is why you have the freedom to move to another state. If the state you were in wasn't to your liking you have 49 other options. The point was you found people your beliefs and morals aligned with. Today people want to make every state the same.
They want to stack the deck. F all the way off
Wait, but doesnt every state have exactly 2 senators BECAUSE the House of Representatives is based on population?
So every state has an equal say in the senate, and large states have more say in the house...
Meaning this guys a liar, complaining because his advantage in the house doesnt exist in the senate.
That was the point of the great compromise. We have two congresses because the authors of the constitution couldn't find any other way to solve the clustering problem.
Let's have pure democracy and see how well that works out. 😅
And Harvard has an unbiased view of the world? Clean up your own house. And let’s talk about your 49 billion in endowments yet you still charge American citizens tuition.
I love how he gives examples of 1/2 of the legislative body, and gives a relatively weak example of how the Judicial branch "favors sparsely populated states" that this is somehow tantamount to the minority groups governing over the heavily populated states. Ummm really guy? Isn't the Executive branch election process based on a number of electors derived from the population of a state? Doesn't this mean that states with more population have more say over the executive branch? And what about the other half of the legislative body of government? Isn't that also based on the census' population numbers? It seems that the framers may have actually come up with a way to treat the minority groups and areas with at least some respect seeing as how the government is never supposed to be based on true majority rule.
It's ALWAYS democrats that want to change something about how the country works down to its core whenever the numbers aren't in their favor. Court Packing, Making DC a state, forcing Judicial outcomes to replace legislation, the Democrats are the most corrupt group in the world even more so than the CCP.
Or we should just have about five major metropolitan areas decide how the rest of the country should follow huh?
If it's where the majority of people live ?
Yes.
@@DavidHeffron78 So, the people living in a rural town in South Dakota should live under the Laws / Rules voted for by the people in NYC. Is that the kind of one size fits all government you want?
@@DavidHeffron78
So you want tyranny by isolated majority.
I mean sure?
But if you were to change America to a pure Democracy instead of a Republic then democrats would gain a huge advantage considering most of the populated areas in the country are democrat ran.
The whole point of having a republic in the first place is so the needs of cities dont overrule the needs of the more rural areas.
America is a MASSIVE country, to put it in perspective, itd be like - if the UK were able to dictate what laws/policies were enacted in Poland.
The needs of the two places are entirely different, however simply because the UK has more people the needs of the UK would always be prioritised.
This would also lead to the issue of politicians never bothering to get the support of Poland either, why bother when you can focus on the UK to get more votes?
Its the same in America.
No political system is perfect, Republics and Democracys both have flaws - but they each try to resolve seperate issues.
Goes to show the Framers weren't as smart as everyone thinks.
or maybe they were. if we push towards allowing more populated states to decide what to do then well its only 5 states that matter.
What a foolish professor. To amend the Constitution would take a two thirds vote of the Congress and then approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures. If my memory is correct. No way would it pass. This guy is just grandstanding
Nothing original here and it’s a waste of time talking about it. It won’t be changed
best ignore things then? that'll certainly change things...oh no wait a minute
@@dannygolightly865. Anyone who knows the U.S. Constitution knows it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change which would require passage in Congress and what? I think two thirds of the states to ratify it. The smaller states would never ratify it and it would never pass Congress. The professor is just grandstanding in front of gullible students. Only a fool would believe this could be changed.
Do you really think the Constitution would be changed by a vote of Congress and 3:4 of the state legislatures? No way
My question is why is it a problem if the more sparsely populated states are given more weight in some proceedings? The "less sparsely populated" states have hardly demonstrated any particular advantage in the wisdom of their governance. I would argue that the collective sanity level is higher in the less populated states (if only because folks who are less crowded together have way less stress in their lives). It's a classic big city/small town conflict, and i think the framers were wise to try to protect the small town common sense folks from their neurotic urban counterparts.
Incorrect. People who live in less populated states are less sane as there's less people to keep the nutcases in check.
Dude you're from Harvard!
The Senate was suppose to represent the State's interests not the peoples. Get rid of the 17th amendment. Also get rid of the 2 party system and let one candidate from each well established party debate. Expand and stop trying to miss lead us with disingenuous statements.