niner, you say partisan talk existed ever since the Constitution but that doesnt make it right.
I never said it was right or wrong. It's the basic structure of our government. It was structure in a manner to make things very tough to get passed.
this was said by George Washington in his Farewell Address. I highly suggest you read the whole thing. He is essentially saying that among the people, there ought be distinctions NOT divisions. The only divisions should be between those who oppose liberty, either internally or externally.
Maybe we are parsing words here...
I have read the whole thing, I have also read every word of ALL of the federalist papers (many of which I have read multiple times) as well as a LOT of the congressional journals. I would suggest you read them.
Take a step back and look at this in laymens view simply based on the structure of government. This isn't rocket science...
House is structure based on districts - to allow the elected official to be closer to the people.
Senate is 2 seats per state - this give the legislators some distance from the people, to bring consistency to government.
Obviously these 2 things oppose each other.
House elections are every 2 years in an effort to keep government "trending" by way of the people that these elected representatives are closest to.
Senate elections are every 6 years, again in an effort to bring stability to congress. So that government doesn't "process" to quickly following a local trend or temporary "fad."
Obviously again, these 2 things very much oppose each other.
House minimum age is 25 years old, once again to be "trendy" and move with the will of the local people to which they represent.
Senate minimum age is 30 years old, yea... again to bring a mature stability to government to oppose too fast or change to government.
Once again, oppose each other.
This list goes on. The very structure of government is intended to be not only SLOW but tough. This was to prevent the legislative body from RULING over it's populous. If government was all on the same page the founding fathers knew laws would be passed in an abundance which rule the people.
They repeatedly made every effort to fight this. To keep these types of things from happening.
Now, I would argue that in the passed, like under Bush (at least early on) government wasn't as divided as they are not (and they should have been!). Which is what resulted in the laws we have today. HAD government been more divided under Bush (just as an example) we might not be talking about stuff like the NSA spy programs. As it was Bush who greatly expanded these actions. Albeit it with specific targets and intentions, he knew what was to come.
They SHOULD have been more divided which would have prevented the things we have today. But now we are arguing we should be more "together" in order to get rid of these things.
Kind of ironic, no?
if you feel like you are settling for a candidate, do not vote for anybody. doing that is not democracy.
I agree, but have to point out we aren't a "democracy."