I was wondering the same. The only thing I can find in the Constitution that might be a check on the press is the postal frank (allowing elected officials to communicate directly with their constituents free of middlemen), and that's a huge stretch.
I agree, along with the Sixteenth. I think if the Senate was beholden to state legislatures for revenue instead of taking it directly, we'd see a lot more fiscal responsibility.
restricted voting Rights and appointment of Senators means the effect that the press has on the average joe does not matter.
Along with what others stated before, I remember the story I heard of a law professor that had all his students to read the Federalist Papers. Invariably, after reading them, the students would remark in class that they were very difficult to read. To which, the professor would say, "Yes, they may be hard to read, but at the time they were written to the reading capability of the average colonial farmer."
Much of the education back in that period, that being the time of the founders and especially before the founding of the country, education was based a lot on the New England Primer. That was a booklet that assisted in the teaching of reading as well as many religious teachings, which was essential to the early religious "settlers" and to the founders.
Wikipedia article on The New England Primer
Last edited:
I say yes. We need the press and information. But there should be accountability and consequences for deliberate misinformation. They have the right to freedom of speech but False disinformation should have fines levied against them. Hefty huge fines for dishonesty. There should be a standard and an ability to be impartial. The facts. Just the dam facts. Truth. Knowledge.
Not some propaganda machine for a bought and paid for buy party that as an evil agenda. There are to many puppets of George Soros and those that hate our country
Not some propaganda machine for a bought and paid for buy party that as an evil agenda. There are to many puppets of George Soros and those that hate our country
State Legislatures appointing Senators ensured that the States had a credible voice in the federalist (small F) system. Federalism means that the the States and the Federal government have their own respective spheres with the States being the primary ones and the Federal government having certain enumerated powers. Right now the States, as political entities, no longer have a direct voice in our Federal system. Rather than enable our system of government, the current direct election scheme for US Senators has actually deprived the Federal system of balance.
The House of Representatives is the direct voice of the people, the Senate was not intended for that. Under the intellectual construct of progressive political philosophy the original design of the Founding Fathers was changed regarding the federal legislature. In fairness, as someone would no doubt have pointed out soon anyway, many States has already sort of bastardized the election of senators in order to allow "the people" more voice by the time the 17th Amendment was proposed. It is all legal - the amendment was duly passed - but it has unhinged and disrupted the very foundation of the system that our Founders established to maintain balance between the partners in our federal system.
what does that have to do with the press?
How, exactly, would you write and enforce such a standard?
How are dumbasses supposed to know how to think without the left wing Media?
Similar threads
