>> Why shouldn't we legislate to reduce the harms they are committing as well?
What do you think a call to write legislation is for?
> We need to stop looking at what the courts decide
The purpose of courts is to interpret the legislation passed by our representatives. The purpose of legislation is to enact the will of the people as interpreted by their representatives and the existing constitution.
If we didn't didn't follow this path, there would be no such thing as anti-trust law - it didn't come from the founders, the harm of anti-competitive behavior was identified and legislated against in the late 1800's - so why shouldn't we identify new forms of anti-competitive behavior that causes harm and do the same?
The purpose of legislation is to enact the will of the people
The purpose of the legislation is to enact the will of the states. The Senate doesn’t represent the “people”. It represents the states. Each state regardless of population has 2 senators. Meaning that 46% of the Senators represent less than 25% of the population.
A powerful government can do much more harm than a corporation. There isn’t a single corporation in America that has the coercive power if the government.
> The Senate doesn’t represent the “people”. It represents the states.
Senators are elected by the people of those states.
> Each state regardless of population has 2 senators. Meaning that 46% of the Senators represent less than 25% of the population.
It's not a direct proportional representation. That's what congress is.
> The purpose of the legislation is to enact the will of the states.
Congress also makes legislation.
> A powerful government can do much more harm than a corporation. There isn’t a single corporation in America that has the coercive power if the government.
The Senate is far more powerful than the House. They also approve judges with lifetime appointments, Cabinet members, and committee chairs - where regulations are actually chosen.
And they are still elected by the people. Just because senators are not proportional to the number of constituents and instead proportional to the number of states does not mean they doesn't represent the people - they represents the people of a state but in a non-proportional manner. You haven't made any points against that since I pointed it out, and it completely negates your original point, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by noting the Senate is more powerful. They are, in some respects, but that's irrelevant as to whether they represent the people. Also, Congress has quite a few unique capabilities as well, such as oversight, impeachment, the ability to declare war. Powers are split between the two parts of the legislative branch.
If I lived in California, why would I want the states in the Bible Belt to have a disproportionate amount of power?
How did that whole impeachment thing work earlier this year? Wasn’t it stopped because a disproportionate number of Senators to the population stopped it?
How often have Presidents used military force when the majority of the people weren’t in favor of it?
Judicial, Cabinet, and Committee are all decided by the Senate.
> The purpose of the legislation is to enact the will of the states.
States are fictions; there is only people. The Senate represents the people, just rather unequally and, in the original form, indirectly (as the President still does.)
And the Senate can't legislate on its own, only together with the House and/or President (recognizing that treaties that have the force of law are a kind of legislation.)
But the Senate does control who gets appointed to the bench. If you are in California or Texas (choosing a blue state and a red state so this doesn’t come off as partisan), how would you feel that your vote counts for a lot less than someone in Rhode Island since they also have two Senators. If you are in either of those states, the last thing you want is a minority of the people disproportionately having sway on government policy.
