The difference between...

[Seraphim]

The Senate and The Congress?


thanks

[Kludge]

House has more members, less power per member (house floor time more limited, more rules in floor debates, votes have less power due to dilution). # of House members per state depends on population of state, which can fluctuate.

Senate has 2 members per state, 100 total. Senators have less rules (can filibuster), votes have more power, can usually talk longer.

Congress refers to both the federal House of Representatives and the Senate.

[Seraphim]

House has more members, less power per member (house floor time more limited, more rules in floor debates, votes have less power due to dilution). # of House members per state depends on population of state, which can fluctuate.

Senate has 2 members per state, 100 total. Senators have less rules (can filibuster), votes have more power, can usually talk longer.

Congress refers to both the federal House of Representatives and the Senate.

Thanks

Ron Paul is a House member right?

[Kludge]

Thanks

Ron Paul is a House member right?

Right.

[brandon]

Yes

[Seraphim]

Right.

If he doesn't become President urge him to go for the Senate. Every bit helps. The more people like him sitting in places of higher power the better.

:)

[Kludge]

If he doesn't become President urge him to go for the Senate. Every bit helps. The more people like him sitting in places of higher power the better.

:)

The idea's been toyed around with a lot.

Ron's a uniquely radical member of Congress who's extraordinarily popular in his particular House district (which is just a small portion of Texas). If he ran for Senate, he'd be vying for the votes of the entire state of Texas where Ron received only 5% in the GOP presidential primary against only Mike Huckabee and John McCain in 2008.

If Ron ran for Senate, he'd quite possibly lose his House seat. With his age and power he already has, most feel it'd be better if Ron stayed where he is; where his Congressional seat is secure (costs almost nothing to win Ron's Congressional election every term).

[Seraphim]

The idea's been toyed around with a lot.

Ron's a uniquely radical member of Congress who's extraordinarily popular in his particular House district (which is just a small portion of Texas). If he ran for Senate, he'd be vying for the votes of the entire state of Texas where Ron received only 5% in the GOP presidential primary against only Mike Huckabee and John McCain in 2008.

If Ron ran for Senate, he'd quite possibly lose his House seat. With his age and power he already has, most feel it'd be better if Ron stayed where he is; where his Congressional seat is secure (costs almost nothing to win Ron's Congressional election every term).

Good points.

I was wondering how a dude so ruthlessly put down by the MSM would win time after time after time- that helps me understand. Thanks for the info.

Hopefully these justin Amash types can sway votes in the House in the direction that Ron Paul votes. 1 vote for liberty is one less vote for the establishment. Gettings 5 more Ron Paul types into the Senate and the House would actually make a huge difference. Once it begins to really take off in the form of elected officials, it will spread like wild fire.

You can shut up 1 or 2 Congressmen, but when 5,6,7, 8 start rising up against the established order to defend the property and lives of the people who have entrusted them- the pendulem starts to veer back towards liberty with some real velocity.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Another big difference is Senators have 6 year terms and a third of them are up for election every 2 years. That means that when the mood of the country is like it is now - kick the bums out - 2/3rds are safe and public sentiment will probably die down before another 1/3 are vulnerable.

House Representatives are reelected every 2 years. That is all of them.

-t

[Seraphim]

Another big difference is Senators have 6 year terms and a third of them are up for election every 2 years. That means that when the mood of the country is like it is now - kick the bums out - 2/3rds are safe and public sentiment will probably die down before another 1/3 are vulnerable.

House Representatives are reelected every 2 years. That is all of them.

-t

Ahh that is an important details. Thanks!

6 years is a long term :O

[Bern]

Senators are also elected in statewide races. House members are elected by their district.

Thus, it's much more expensive to campaign for a Senate race - especially in larger states.

[low preference guy]

Senators were originally appointed by States legislatures, while House Members were chosen by the people of the States. That changed with the 17th Amendment.

[oyarde]

The idea's been toyed around with a lot.

Ron's a uniquely radical member of Congress who's extraordinarily popular in his particular House district (which is just a small portion of Texas). If he ran for Senate, he'd be vying for the votes of the entire state of Texas where Ron received only 5% in the GOP presidential primary against only Mike Huckabee and John McCain in 2008.

If Ron ran for Senate, he'd quite possibly lose his House seat. With his age and power he already has, most feel it'd be better if Ron stayed where he is; where his Congressional seat is secure (costs almost nothing to win Ron's Congressional election every term).

This is true . At this point the congress is our best bet to stop bad legislation . If it does not pass there it does not get signed into law .We have to elect a congress that will uphold the Constitution and preserve our Liberty . This means no social spending . Those types of things are meant for the states .

[forsmant]

whats with the middle school questions?

[oyarde]

whats with the middle school questions?

Do they still teach about the legislative, judicial etc. government in middle or high school ?

[forsmant]

i dont know

[TheTyke]

Another consideration is which spots are OPEN. Some people though Rand should run for a House seat against an incumbent - but he wisely chose to run for an open Senate seat. Not only did it afford more power, but it also maybe have ended up easier to win than a House race vs. an incumbent. No incumbent makes it a LOT easier to win. Something that Ron and all our candidates should keep in mind, as it amplifies the effect of the resources we put into it.

[oyarde]

i dont know

I have a 17 year old , I will ask him sometime , but I get the distinct feeling that what I have taught him is his exposure.

[RCA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives

[oyarde]

whats with the middle school questions?

I think I figured it out , Seraphim may be Canadian .

[Kludge]

Do they still teach about the legislative, judicial etc. government in middle or high school ?

Yes. Government was a required course for me, and AP was offered as an elective online.


I think I figured it out , Seraphim may be Canadian .

Probably. I assumed he was foreign, too.

[oyarde]

After Freshman Social studies in High School , we were required one semester each of govt. and economics , bussiness was an elective. Two semesters of History was required and World Religions was an elective and only two more semesters of math ( your choice what type ). Of course this was 1980.

[Kludge]

After Freshman Social studies in High School , we were required one semester each of govt. and economics , bussiness was an elective. Two semesters of History was required and World Religions was an elective and only two more semesters of math ( your choice what type ). Of course this was 1980.

In 2009 - in MI, Gov't & Econ were required, along with American History, Geography (which I remember absolutely nothing of), and Practical Law. Teacher-in-class electives for my next-to-a-corn-field high school included Ancient World History, Modern World History, America At War (covered all US [including current] wars and tactics used), Personal Finance, and a class called "Currency" which was cut when I wanted to take it. Students are required to take far many more classes than they need. Maybe this is a good consolation for having many "standard" classes focus so much on standardized test scores.

Now, many high schools are outsourcing their AP classes to online schools (which can often count as college credit), where there's an incredible variety in what kids can study. I took an AP Gov't course and it was alright. We learned a lot of vocabulary nobody uses, but also an incredible amount about the Constitution, the Founders' intent, and the actual meaning of many recent court cases. Though... it was kind of ruined by all the bizarre group activities we had to coordinate doing with kids out of our district.

[Old Ducker]

After Freshman Social studies in High School , we were required one semester each of govt. and economics , bussiness was an elective. Two semesters of History was required and World Religions was an elective and only two more semesters of math ( your choice what type ). Of course this was 1980.

Things I remember from high school:

- Having to do 50 rope climbs for saying "shit" after I flubbed a move on the parallel bars during a meet.

- Laying exhausted after practice on the crash mat underneath the uneven parallel bars and noticing a bunch of twisted off pubes

- LOLing at our meet posters, which consisted of TOPS rolling paper covers glued onto paper stating "Celts are TOPS!"

- The senior prank, which consisted of a few pickup loads of manure piled on the front porch bearing a sign reading "You've given us shit for three years and now we're giving it back."

- Being sent to the principal by one teacher who hated me and being told stories of him and my dad playing on the baseball team in college and then being told, "ok, you can go."

- The very cool chemistry teacher who would release us as soon as his lecture was done, which might have been 15 minutes prior to the end of the period.

- One very cute girl who wore sweaters without a bra.

That's about it.