Can anyone help me with my government class?

[garet f]

I have to write some essays. Im asked this: Identify and describe the three influences that produced the bicameral
legislative branch of the US government. Argue which of the three was the most
significant in the formation of the legislative branch. Support your response with
specific references.

 

[02GreenTJ]

Good luck on math tomorrow

 

[garet f]

We sit next to each other.

 

[02GreenTJ]

We gotta get the offroad club on the forum

 

[05 Blue Unlimited]

Hummm is Mark Levin in the house?

 

[tworley]

 

[Mr. Bills]

I have to write some essays. Im asked this: Identify and describe the three influences that produced the bicameral
legislative branch of the US government. Argue which of the three was the most
significant in the formation of the legislative branch. Support your response with
specific references.

The information you need is in the Federalist Papers, particularly the writings of James Madison. See Federalist #51, #52 and #62 in particular.

However, in keeping with the typical internet response to your query:

"A camel with one hump is known as a dromedary. A camel with two humps is way cooler, and is known as a bactrian camel. Bi-camels go both ways "

 

[billiebob]

Senate and House of Representatives. Senate gives every state 2 votes, big/small no difference. House of Representaives gives every voter equal representation. But what were the "3 influences" in establishing Congress? Founding Fathers? Vast expanses of land vs dense populations on the east coast? A desire for fair representation and a cooling of passions by a mature Senate with slower processes.

Definitely looking forward to where this goes. I love following the history of democracy.

 

[danof76]

I'd follow what @Mr. Bills said, citing the Federalist Papers is probably best thing you can do.

Otherwise three reasons? Well for one you need to understand this was before the 17th amendment where Senators were not elected but appointed by the governments of the states. That itself could be one reason when you view what the responsibilities of the Senate itself is supposed to be, a big one being the power to ratify treaties. This made sure that the states had direct influence in foreign policy for instance. Meanwhile the House was based on a number of representatives from each state based on the population. This made sure that the people of each state had their representation within the federal government, in particular making sure how the federal government spent it's money (a duty of the House). The bicameral structure basically made it to where both the people of the states and the state itself had to consent to legislation passed.

It is very different now and almost redundant that Senators are directly elected by the people of the state. The Senate still has it's separate duties from the House but they're both elected by the people, it's just I don't have a say in what district sends what representative to congress except my own, but my neighboring district and I both have a say in who we send to the Senate.

Kind of a tangent at the end there but the first paragraph could be considered a couple of reasons at least. Again, Federalist papers is a great source to look into in how this was all reasoned in the first place and a resource itself that not enough people today look into. For instance people think the Electoral College is outdated, but the Founding Fathers very much did consider direct democracy for electing a president as well as other models but decided the method we went with would be the best for the integrity of the nation.

So, uh, good luck!

 

[Jeepers-n-Creepers]

Within your Government class, I sorely wish your instructor were informed enough, and thereafter at-liberty enough, to engage the question of defining and acknowledging the present state of Government in the U.S. That is, the government behind the government, which most Americans have chosen not to acknowledge--a government very different from that depicted in mass-media--a government which is rapidly succumbing to global governance--and with the buy-in of most Americans--who've been duped into believing a non-reality--which requires a lot less mental energy.

Cursory kudos are due the mass-media architects; who've almost succeeded in terminal mind-warp throughout the fruited plane at this juncture.

@garet f, I challenge you to question everything you are being told within the current "formal" and/or "higher education" orbit in which you find yourself. Formal education, at this juncture in the U.S., is rarely anything more than formal indoctrination.

It is commendable and wise to seek to understand the founding fabric of this nation. However, it is yet wiser to acknowledge that most of formal education in the year 2018, is presently re-writing the account of the original weaving of such the fabric. How quickly polyester is almost universally replacing cotton.

The ancient Greeks were truly onto something, when, for centuries, their greatest philosophers had concluded that the deepest thinking among human beings was that which occurred in the heart--the place where deep conviction is created. The mind serves well to rationalize, however it is the heart which truly convicts, and which in turn propels men and women to so impact humanity that their names are never forgotten--most of which names were those who adopted a cause deemed wholly irrational, and which was opposed by the masses.

2019 and 2020 are shaping-up into potentially being the most tumultuous years for this country in my lifetime--as the result of what is presently unfolding within the-government-behind-the-government which is presently being depicted in mass-media, and within the sterile walls of "higher education." As such the shaking begins in 2019, stand firm in your convictions--those things deeply seated in your heart--versus those things which mass indoctrination has sought to do in governing your mind.

 

[Mr. Bills]

A well written critical analysis of the rationale and the motivations of the Founding Fathers will likely yield an "A." Pointing out how the original intent has been corrupted in the 21st Century is asking for a "C" or less from a professor with liberal political leanings.

Know your audience. Sometimes its better to be smart than right.

 

[danof76]

A well written critical analysis of the rationale and the motivations of the Founding Fathers will likely yield an "A." Pointing out how the original intent has been corrupted in the 21st Century is asking for a "C" or less from a professor with liberal political leanings.

Know your audience. Sometimes its better to be smart than right.

I think the former should be all one needs to read in order to come to the conclusion of the latter.

The Founding Fathers were very well reasoned and established in their positions. Like you said there are the Federalist Papers to understand that. Add in some history and that ought to provide all the perspective one needs. If your reader can't appreciate that then either you can't communicate well enough or they aren't willing to listen.

 

[Jeepers-n-Creepers]

A well written critical analysis of the rationale and the motivations of the Founding Fathers will likely yield an "A." Pointing out how the original intent has been corrupted in the 21st Century is asking for a "C" or less from a professor with liberal political leanings.

Know your audience. Sometimes its better to be smart than right.

True, unfortunately.

A most fitting conclusion: There is the way things should be, and then there is the way things are.