# Repeal the 17th Amendment!



## MuadDib

A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.

According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:



> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *chosen by the Legislature thereof*, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.



Originally, US Senators were not elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives were elected by the people to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was *appointed by the state legislatures* to represent the inerests of the states.  That kept senators out of the political process.

That was changed 1910 by the progressives when they changed that with the 17th Amendment:



> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *elected by the people thereof, for six years*; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
> 
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.



Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.

Hilarity ensues!


----------



## Douger

Yeah. You were framed all right.


----------



## Oddball

> Repeal the 17th Amendment!


Agreed.


----------



## zzzz

Why no poll?


----------



## editec

> The Senate was *appointed by the state legislatures* to represent the inerests of the states. That kept senators out of the political process.


 

Yeah,  sure it did.


----------



## konradv

editec said:


> The Senate was *appointed by the state legislatures* to represent the inerests of the states. That kept senators out of the political process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah,  sure it did.
Click to expand...


Exactly, since when are legislatures not political?  Until recently the Senate was applauded for its collegiality nearly 100 years after the amendment, indicating whatever seems to be going wrong has a more proximal cause than the 17th.


----------



## Listening

It did not keep senators out of the political process.  In fact that is the reason the states so stupidly turned over their watchdogs at the federal level to the people.

The 17th removed a huge structural component of the U.S. Constitution.  The house was to dwell on what the people wanted, but the senate was there to make sure the fed didn't try to give them what it was not empowered to give them....thus looking out for states powers as described in the 10th amendment.

I say we repeal the stupid thing and get back (yep go back, get back, return, turn back the clock) to the day when states could tailor things to the way they wanted them.

Romneycare for Mass....no problem.  Have at it Mass.

Don't want it in AZ or KS.  Don't have to have it.

It's a great country.


----------



## whitehall

Watch out when people suggest that you give up your right to vote and support a less messy form or government that works smoother without your input. I think the Germans tried it back in the 30's.


----------



## Sallow

Get rid of the Senate, altogether.

Really..why is it needed?


----------



## Sallow

Listening said:


> It did not keep senators out of the political process.  In fact that is the reason the states so stupidly turned over their watchdogs at the federal level to the people.
> 
> The 17th removed a huge structural component of the U.S. Constitution.  The house was to dwell on what the people wanted, but the senate was there to make sure the fed didn't try to give them what it was not empowered to give them....thus looking out for states powers as described in the 10th amendment.
> 
> I say we repeal the stupid thing and get back (yep go back, get back, return, turn back the clock) to the day when states could tailor things to the way they wanted them.
> 
> Romneycare for Mass....no problem.  Have at it Mass.
> 
> Don't want it in AZ or KS.  Don't have to have it.
> 
> It's a great country.



Yeah..like that time some of the country thought you could own human beings..and others didn't.

Great stuff..


----------



## jillian

I love how rightingnuts are whining about the house that's keeping the nutbars in the House under control. If it was reversed and the House was dem, you'd be saying that only the senate should exist.

The pretend constitutionalists hate the constitution. It's so funny.


----------



## rightwinger

I trust the people voting for Senators over having them appointed in a back room deal

We need to repeal the Third Amendment!


----------



## mudwhistle

The only problem I have with getting rid of the Senate is it removes one of the checks and balances to government. 

If the sheeple allow the Democrats to take everything over again what's to stop the House from trouncing all over our rights?

I think the system works fine the way it is. It just is going to take time to weed out all of the scumbags.


----------



## jillian

*yawn*


----------



## Sallow

jillian said:


> I love how rightingnuts are whining about the house that's keeping the nutbars in the House under control. If it was reversed and the House was dem, you'd be saying that only the senate should exist.
> 
> The pretend constitutionalists hate the constitution. It's so funny.



That not the argument, really. They want to remove the right to vote for senators and let governors appoint them. And generally that leads to cronyism.

Personally..I'd be in favor of getting rid of the Senate..if they wanted to go that route and gerrymandering. There needs to be a more fair and equitable method of determining districts as well as a more democratic way of electing out leaders. The Electorial college is completely antiquated and makes absolutely no sense. Our current congressional configuration harkens back to the English Parliment of Lords and Commons. It's ridiculous.


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> I trust the people voting for Senators over having them appointed in a back room deal
> 
> We need to repeal the Third Amendment!



Sure you do......after seeing that NBC poll. (Bogus I might add)

Wonder if you would trust the sheeple if the poll said Romney 55 Obama 35.


----------



## Oddball

Sallow said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how rightingnuts are whining about the house that's keeping the nutbars in the House under control. If it was reversed and the House was dem, you'd be saying that only the senate should exist.
> 
> The pretend constitutionalists hate the constitution. It's so funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That not the argument, really. They want to remove the right to vote for senators and let governors appoint them. And generally that leads to cronyism.
> 
> Personally..I'd be in favor of getting rid of the Senate..if they wanted to go that route and gerrymandering. There needs to be a more fair and equitable method of determining districts as well as a more democratic way of electing out leaders. The Electorial college is completely antiquated and makes absolutely no sense. Our current congressional configuration harkens back to the English Parliment of Lords and Commons. It's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Talk about people who hate the Constitution.


----------



## JWBooth

Repeal the 19th while we are at it.


----------



## rightwinger

JWBooth said:


> Repeal the 19th while we are at it.



Why split hairs?

We don't need militias any more. Let's repeal the second amendment


----------



## mudwhistle

rightwinger said:


> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal the 19th while we are at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why split hairs?
> 
> We don't need militias any more. Let's repeal the second amendment
Click to expand...


Sure....let's leave everything up to the government to decide, let them decide what's best for us.


----------



## rightwinger

mudwhistle said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JWBooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Repeal the 19th while we are at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why split hairs?
> 
> We don't need militias any more. Let's repeal the second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure....let's leave everything up to the government to decide, let them decide what's best for us.
Click to expand...


Gun rights should be determined at the state level

Nation defense is provided by our armed services, militias are not needed


----------



## Navy1960

Hey good idea,  get rid of the Senate and then what would you do when you find yourselves at the whim of say, California, New York,  etc. ? and you just happen to say live in Wyoming?  Well the answer is tough,  as the house being the only body that matters and as it represents  the   "people" and the vast majority of those people are  are in a small number of states, then it passes that the legislation that will pass will represent that.  Theres a reason for the Senate, now while it at times seems to be slow and in disagreement with the House, that is exactly why it is there.  It exists so that those people who live in states like Arizona, Alabama, Maine, take your pick don't find ourselves with the same laws that don't fit our states like they do in say, California, or Texas, etc.  One more thing of note here,  with no Senate, that would mark a shift away from the current form of Govt. we enjoy now and move towards a  " majority rules" Govt.  so I thought it worth reminding everyone of something. 

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... John Adam's


----------



## Listening

Navy1960 said:


> Hey good idea,  get rid of the Senate and then what would you do when you find yourselves at the whim of say, California, New York,  etc. ? and you just happen to say live in Wyoming?  Well the answer is tough,  as the house being the only body that matters and as it represents  the   "people" and the vast majority of those people are  are in a small number of states, then it passes that the legislation that will pass will represent that.  Theres a reason for the Senate, now while it at times seems to be slow and in disagreement with the House, that is exactly why it is there.  It exists so that those people who live in states like Arizona, Alabama, Maine, take your pick don't find ourselves with the same laws that don't fit our states like they do in say, California, or Texas, etc.  One more thing of note here,  with no Senate, that would mark a shift away from the current form of Govt. we enjoy now and move towards a  " majority rules" Govt.  so I thought it worth reminding everyone of something.
> 
> If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... John Adam's



Who's talking about getting rid of the senate.

Repealing the 17th does not do that.

The 17th didn't ratify until 1913 (from memory).

The senate has existed from 1787 on........


----------



## Listening

Sallow said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> It did not keep senators out of the political process.  In fact that is the reason the states so stupidly turned over their watchdogs at the federal level to the people.
> 
> The 17th removed a huge structural component of the U.S. Constitution.  The house was to dwell on what the people wanted, but the senate was there to make sure the fed didn't try to give them what it was not empowered to give them....thus looking out for states powers as described in the 10th amendment.
> 
> I say we repeal the stupid thing and get back (yep go back, get back, return, turn back the clock) to the day when states could tailor things to the way they wanted them.
> 
> Romneycare for Mass....no problem.  Have at it Mass.
> 
> Don't want it in AZ or KS.  Don't have to have it.
> 
> It's a great country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah..like that time some of the country thought you could own human beings..and others didn't.
> 
> Great stuff..
Click to expand...


Strawman.....

The 13th amendment took care of that.

However, I am all for repealing and rewriting the 14th to get rid of selective incorporation.

Honestly, do you even think ?


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> I love how rightingnuts are whining about the house that's keeping the nutbars in the House under control. If it was reversed and the House was dem, you'd be saying that only the senate should exist.
> 
> The pretend constitutionalists hate the constitution. It's so funny.



Once again, Shillian you show you are full of crapp.

The explanation has already been given and the senate is necessary to protect the states from people like Obama.

The whole basis for the bicameral congress is spelled out in the Federalist papers and the key difference in the house and senate was the result of some brilliant thinking.

Take your smart pills or get a new prescription.


----------



## rightwinger

Listening said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how rightingnuts are whining about the house that's keeping the nutbars in the House under control. If it was reversed and the House was dem, you'd be saying that only the senate should exist.
> 
> The pretend constitutionalists hate the constitution. It's so funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Shillian you show you are full of crapp.
> 
> The explanation has already been given and the senate is necessary to protect the states from people like Obama.
> 
> The whole basis for the bicameral congress is spelled out in the Federalist papers and the key difference in the house and senate was the result of some brilliant thinking.
> 
> Take your smart pills or get a new prescription.
Click to expand...


The American people would never tolerate giving up their right to elect Senators.......go back to smoking your bong


----------



## Navy1960

Listening said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey good idea,  get rid of the Senate and then what would you do when you find yourselves at the whim of say, California, New York,  etc. ? and you just happen to say live in Wyoming?  Well the answer is tough,  as the house being the only body that matters and as it represents  the   "people" and the vast majority of those people are  are in a small number of states, then it passes that the legislation that will pass will represent that.  Theres a reason for the Senate, now while it at times seems to be slow and in disagreement with the House, that is exactly why it is there.  It exists so that those people who live in states like Arizona, Alabama, Maine, take your pick don't find ourselves with the same laws that don't fit our states like they do in say, California, or Texas, etc.  One more thing of note here,  with no Senate, that would mark a shift away from the current form of Govt. we enjoy now and move towards a  " majority rules" Govt.  so I thought it worth reminding everyone of something.
> 
> If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... John Adam's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's talking about getting rid of the senate.
> 
> Repealing the 17th does not do that.
> 
> The 17th didn't ratify until 1913 (from memory).
> 
> The senate has existed from 1787 on........
Click to expand...


Reading some of the commentary in the thread, and was responding to it, I'm aware the 17th Amendment established the direct election of Senators as well as addressed the issue of appointments.  First in order to repeal the 17th  you and I both know that would require a repeal amendment which then would require 2/3rd's of the states to ratify it, which would never happen in this case because  the debate here is to relinquish a voters ability to select their own Senator or have someone else do it for them.  In that case, your going to have a long uphill climb to ever have that come to pass.  If the Senate is the issue with some, perhaps the best place to start would be to actually vote for Senators who are willing to pass rules in the Senate that would streamline its  procedure.  Frankly, other than for  say a Supreme Court Justice, or perhaps  a budget in my humble opinion,  I find it frustrating beyond measure that a minority of Senators can hold  the majority hostage even if that majority is 1 vote. Doesn't matter what party holds the Senate.


----------



## BluePhantom

Sallow said:


> Get rid of the Senate, altogether.
> 
> Really..why is it needed?



Come on Sallow, you know *precisely *why it's needed.  Remember...balance between the large states and the small states.  The Senate is where Rhode Island can avoid getting trampled by New York.  I can think of a lot of states that would have a very strong opinion about getting rid of the Senate.  In addition to RI there's Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed.



We shouldnt  the reason is crystal clear: the problem is voters who refuse to get involved at the local level, who encourage partisanism, and dont hold Senators accountable on election day. 



> Get rid of the Senate, altogether.
> 
> Really..why is it needed?



If the voters compelled the Senate to operate as intended, to be a neutral, _non-partisan _body to act as a check on the irresponsible passions of the people, then this wouldnt be an issue in the first place. 

The Senate is crippled as a consequence of the partisanism, anathema to its original intent, regardless the majority party.


----------



## whitehall

jillian said:


> I love how rightingnuts are whining about the house that's keeping the nutbars in the House under control. If it was reversed and the House was dem, you'd be saying that only the senate should exist.
> 
> The pretend constitutionalists hate the constitution. It's so funny.



FDR tried to stack the supreme court one time but other than that  I don't recall either party  ever suggesting that we change the Constitution so that voters have less power. That's a figment of the over-heated liberal imagination brought on by a socialist leaning administration..


----------



## Listening

Navy1960 said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey good idea,  get rid of the Senate and then what would you do when you find yourselves at the whim of say, California, New York,  etc. ? and you just happen to say live in Wyoming?  Well the answer is tough,  as the house being the only body that matters and as it represents  the   "people" and the vast majority of those people are  are in a small number of states, then it passes that the legislation that will pass will represent that.  Theres a reason for the Senate, now while it at times seems to be slow and in disagreement with the House, that is exactly why it is there.  It exists so that those people who live in states like Arizona, Alabama, Maine, take your pick don't find ourselves with the same laws that don't fit our states like they do in say, California, or Texas, etc.  One more thing of note here,  with no Senate, that would mark a shift away from the current form of Govt. we enjoy now and move towards a  " majority rules" Govt.  so I thought it worth reminding everyone of something.
> 
> If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... John Adam's
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's talking about getting rid of the senate.
> 
> Repealing the 17th does not do that.
> 
> The 17th didn't ratify until 1913 (from memory).
> 
> The senate has existed from 1787 on........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading some of the commentary in the thread, and was responding to it, I'm aware the 17th Amendment established the direct election of Senators as well as addressed the issue of appointments.  First in order to repeal the 17th  you and I both know that would require a repeal amendment which then would require 2/3rd's of the states to ratify it, which would never happen in this case because  the debate here is to relinquish a voters ability to select their own Senator or have someone else do it for them.  In that case, your going to have a long uphill climb to ever have that come to pass.  If the Senate is the issue with some, perhaps the best place to start would be to actually vote for Senators who are willing to pass rules in the Senate that would streamline its  procedure.  Frankly, other than for  say a Supreme Court Justice, or perhaps  a budget in my humble opinion,  I find it frustrating beyond measure that a minority of Senators can hold  the majority hostage even if that majority is 1 vote. Doesn't matter what party holds the Senate.
Click to expand...


For some time, I have been in favor of states holding inquiries and commissions in D.C. to essentially take on the funtion of the senate.  The state legislature would send people to D.C. to get involved in these investigations.  Then the state could go after the morons in congress who don't tow the line.

Of course it would be partisan....but it would be a start.

Actually, it would be a mess....but it would get the single cloak and dagger crapp out in the open.


----------



## American Horse

The 17th Amendment has had some really bad results over the years.  I tallied the number of years US Senators served during the 100 years prior to the 17th and the 97 years after the 17th (of the 13 original states) and found that they serve almost exactly twice as long since 1913 than they did before.  

Prior to the passage state legislatures could provide that their US Senator was more closely aligned to the political majority of the state, and therefore was actually much more responsive to the state's political consensus and 'current' needs.

Our own state has had Senator Lugar in office since he first ran in 1976.
He accomplished all that I voted for him for; which at the time was promotion of small business.  He has voted 80% plus in favor of small business.  Lugar hasn't lived in the state for 35 years, and doesn't even hold an address here.  He's been claiming the residence he was at when he first ran, but thats been sold and occupied by others now for 35 years.  

His opponent in the current race, is keeping that issue alive by challenging Lugar&#8217;s voting at a precinct in which he has no residence.  Exposing that is  being called dirty politics. So Lugar's running once again, for a 7th term, and has become a kind of "statesman" of the Senate.  That's all fine, for him, but we need a change.  

His opponent, Richard Mourdoc took the side of bondholders (bonds held by firemen, police, teachers, state employees), their position as first in line  as lien holders, and brought it to trial in their defense.  That was an aggressive position to take, and he did it well.  The best Lugar can do is argue that Mourdoc missed public meetings on which his office held a pro-forma position 66 percent of the time; but of course Mourdoc sent his assistants or representatives to all those public meetings.  

The 17th amendment has proven to protect incumbents in so many ways. It can never be rolled back, and we can never expect Senators to vote against their own incumbency.

The Senate still has an essential purpose; to slow the progress of bad ideas coming out of the house, and to vote as a caucus of the states in instances of &#8220;advice and consent&#8221; to the president.  But now the Senate is made up of little more than super-representatives with all the same demands made on it as house members are subject to, with the only real difference  being that their term of 6 years alternating in 3-different classes versus 2 years provides for a slow-down mechanism in times of volatile political change that the house is so subject to.


----------



## Dante

*MuadDib is USMB's latest, biggest, blowhard*



MuadDib said:


> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.
> 
> According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:
> 
> ...



It functions as intended. Simpletons like you mistake process of elections for governing.

If you want I will write a letter in defense of your right to a refund for whatever education the state defrauded you out of when they gave you toilet paper saying you were educated properly.

:coo:
dD


----------



## Dante

*Listening was in the running for USMB's latest, biggest, blowhard, but came in second to MuadDib*



Listening said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who's talking about getting rid of the senate.
> 
> Repealing the 17th does not do that.
> 
> The 17th didn't ratify until 1913 (from memory).
> 
> The senate has existed from 1787 on........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reading some of the commentary in the thread, and was responding to it, I'm aware the 17th Amendment established the direct election of Senators as well as addressed the issue of appointments.  First in order to repeal the 17th  you and I both know that would require a repeal amendment which then would require 2/3rd's of the states to ratify it, which would never happen in this case because  the debate here is to relinquish a voters ability to select their own Senator or have someone else do it for them.  In that case, your going to have a long uphill climb to ever have that come to pass.  If the Senate is the issue with some, perhaps the best place to start would be to actually vote for Senators who are willing to pass rules in the Senate that would streamline its  procedure.  Frankly, other than for  say a Supreme Court Justice, or perhaps  a budget in my humble opinion,  I find it frustrating beyond measure that a minority of Senators can hold  the majority hostage even if that majority is 1 vote. Doesn't matter what party holds the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For some time, I have been in favor of states holding inquiries and commissions in D.C. to essentially take on the funtion of the senate.  The state legislature would send people to D.C. to get involved in these investigations.  Then the state could go after the morons in congress who don't tow the line.
> 
> Of course it would be partisan....but it would be a start.
> 
> Actually, it would be a mess....but it would get the single cloak and dagger crapp out in the open.
Click to expand...


----------



## The T

Oddball said:


> Repeal the 17th Amendment!
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.
Click to expand...

Agreed...and add the 16th in the package.


----------



## The T

BluePhantom said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of the Senate, altogether.
> 
> Really..why is it needed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Sallow, you know *precisely *why it's needed. Remember...balance between the large states and the small states. The Senate is where Rhode Island can avoid getting trampled by New York. I can think of a lot of states that would have a very strong opinion about getting rid of the Senate. In addition to RI there's Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc
Click to expand...

 
And the reason for the _Electoral College._

_I'm sure the left would like to see that repealed._


----------



## Dante

The T said:


> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of the Senate, altogether.
> 
> Really..why is it needed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Sallow, you know *precisely *why it's needed. Remember...balance between the large states and the small states. The Senate is where Rhode Island can avoid getting trampled by New York. I can think of a lot of states that would have a very strong opinion about getting rid of the Senate. In addition to RI there's Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the reason for the _Electoral College._
> 
> _I'm sure the left would like to see that repealed._
Click to expand...


for all of you newcomers to USMB ----- T is here =  alert!


----------



## ABikerSailor

whitehall said:


> Watch out when people suggest that you give up your right to vote and support a less messy form or government that works smoother without your input. I think the Germans tried it back in the 30's.



They already have.  Remember MI appointing city managers who are able to override the local government and fire officials, sell assets and other things, all without a vote from the people?

And that is happening in GOP controlled states.


----------



## rightwinger

American Horse said:


> The 17th Amendment has had some really bad results over the years.  I tallied the number of years US Senators served during the 100 years prior to the 17th and the 97 years after the 17th (of the 13 original states) and found that they serve almost exactly twice as long since 1913 than they did before.
> 
> *Prior to the passage state legislatures could provide that their US Senator was more closely aligned to the political majority of the state, and therefore was actually much more responsive to the state's political consensus and 'current' needs.*
> 
> Our own state has had Senator Lugar in office since he first ran in 1976.
> He accomplished all that I voted for him for; which at the time was promotion of small business.  He has voted 80% plus in favor of small business.  Lugar hasn't lived in the state for 35 years, and doesn't even hold an address here.  He's been claiming the residence he was at when he first ran, but thats been sold and occupied by others now for 35 years.
> 
> His opponent in the current race, is keeping that issue alive by challenging Lugars voting at a precinct in which he has no residence.  Exposing that is  being called dirty politics. So Lugar's running once again, for a 7th term, and has become a kind of "statesman" of the Senate.  That's all fine, for him, but we need a change.
> 
> His opponent, Richard Mourdoc took the side of bondholders (bonds held by firemen, police, teachers, state employees), their position as first in line  as lien holders, and brought it to trial in their defense.  That was an aggressive position to take, and he did it well.  The best Lugar can do is argue that Mourdoc missed public meetings on which his office held a pro-forma position 66 percent of the time; but of course Mourdoc sent his assistants or representatives to all those public meetings.
> 
> The 17th amendment has proven to protect incumbents in so many ways. It can never be rolled back, and we can never expect Senators to vote against their own incumbency.
> 
> The Senate still has an essential purpose; to slow the progress of bad ideas coming out of the house, and to vote as a caucus of the states in instances of advice and consent to the president.  But now the Senate is made up of little more than super-representatives with all the same demands made on it as house members are subject to, with the only real difference  being that their term of 6 years alternating in 3-different classes versus 2 years provides for a slow-down mechanism in times of volatile political change that the house is so subject to.



Interesting....did you consider that Americans live 15 years longer than in 1913 as contributing to Senators serving longer?

How do state legislators ensure that Senators are more closely aligned with the will of the people than the actual voters of the state?

People want to elect their own Senators......why is that so hard to understand?


----------



## Navy1960

One other thing of note on the Senate over the years.  After the 17th Amendment, the elected members of that body are a direct result of the voters who put them there , so it can be said that the actions of various Senators be they Democrat or Republican or whatever can only be changed by those that put them there.  If we the voters choose over and over again to put the same people in office only because we have an affinity for a party  and  do not bother to look at the actions of those who are supposed to represent us, then when those Senators choose  to do things  over and over again that displease us don't be surprised.  The best way, to change the Senate is in the voting booth, and once people begin to do this then perhaps that body well better represent the people that send them there, rather than K Street, Wall Street,  or whatever Street , other than Main Street.


----------



## freedombecki

rightwinger said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how rightingnuts are whining about the house that's keeping the nutbars in the House under control. If it was reversed and the House was dem, you'd be saying that only the senate should exist.
> 
> The pretend constitutionalists hate the constitution. It's so funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Shillian you show you are full of crapp.
> 
> The explanation has already been given and the senate is necessary to protect the states from people like Obama.
> 
> The whole basis for the bicameral congress is spelled out in the Federalist papers and the key difference in the house and senate was the result of some brilliant thinking.
> 
> Take your smart pills or get a new prescription.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The American people would never tolerate giving up their right to elect Senators.......go back to smoking your bong
Click to expand...

We have to. A little birdie told me.


----------



## freedombecki

ABikerSailor said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out when people suggest that you give up your right to vote and support a less messy form or government that works smoother without your input. I think the Germans tried it back in the 30's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already have.  Remember MI appointing city managers who are able to override the local government and fire officials, sell assets and other things, all without a vote from the people?
> 
> And that is happening in GOP controlled states.
Click to expand...

Michigan votes Democrat a lot. 

Example of GOP states you said are doing likewise?


----------



## ABikerSailor

freedombecki said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out when people suggest that you give up your right to vote and support a less messy form or government that works smoother without your input. I think the Germans tried it back in the 30's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They already have.  Remember MI appointing city managers who are able to override the local government and fire officials, sell assets and other things, all without a vote from the people?
> 
> And that is happening in GOP controlled states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Michigan votes Democrat a lot.
> 
> Example of GOP states you said are doing likewise?
Click to expand...


Actually, Michigan is one of 'em.



> The Governor of Michigan is the chief executive of the U.S. State of Michigan. The current Governor is Rick Snyder, a member of the Republican Party.



Governor of Michigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sucks when your partisan talking points gets blown outta the water, eh?  Michigan IS a GOP controlled state.


----------



## freedombecki

rightwinger said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 17th Amendment has had some really bad results over the years.  I tallied the number of years US Senators served during the 100 years prior to the 17th and the 97 years after the 17th (of the 13 original states) and found that they serve almost exactly twice as long since 1913 than they did before.
> 
> *Prior to the passage state legislatures could provide that their US Senator was more closely aligned to the political majority of the state, and therefore was actually much more responsive to the state's political consensus and 'current' needs.*
> 
> Our own state has had Senator Lugar in office since he first ran in 1976.
> He accomplished all that I voted for him for; which at the time was promotion of small business.  He has voted 80% plus in favor of small business.  Lugar hasn't lived in the state for 35 years, and doesn't even hold an address here.  He's been claiming the residence he was at when he first ran, but thats been sold and occupied by others now for 35 years.
> 
> His opponent in the current race, is keeping that issue alive by challenging Lugars voting at a precinct in which he has no residence.  Exposing that is  being called dirty politics. So Lugar's running once again, for a 7th term, and has become a kind of "statesman" of the Senate.  That's all fine, for him, but we need a change.
> 
> His opponent, Richard Mourdoc took the side of bondholders (bonds held by firemen, police, teachers, state employees), their position as first in line  as lien holders, and brought it to trial in their defense.  That was an aggressive position to take, and he did it well.  The best Lugar can do is argue that Mourdoc missed public meetings on which his office held a pro-forma position 66 percent of the time; but of course Mourdoc sent his assistants or representatives to all those public meetings.
> 
> The 17th amendment has proven to protect incumbents in so many ways. It can never be rolled back, and we can never expect Senators to vote against their own incumbency.
> 
> The Senate still has an essential purpose; to slow the progress of bad ideas coming out of the house, and to vote as a caucus of the states in instances of advice and consent to the president.  But now the Senate is made up of little more than super-representatives with all the same demands made on it as house members are subject to, with the only real difference  being that their term of 6 years alternating in 3-different classes versus 2 years provides for a slow-down mechanism in times of volatile political change that the house is so subject to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting....did you consider that Americans live 15 years longer than in 1913 as contributing to Senators serving longer?
> 
> How do state legislators ensure that Senators are more closely aligned with the will of the people than the actual voters of the state?
> 
> People want to elect their own Senators......why is that so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

I like the idea of the states electing the Senators. It makes a lot more sense. The state legislators have their ear to the ground with the particular needs of what would be best for their state. 

The current system is not working because the Senators have given up their traditions of being courteous guardians of the laws that are put in effect on the people and their interests. Our conservative posters here at USMB are right on this one. The Senate and the House should be two entirely different entities, and the final outcome should be closer to what the states that send them want and less what Capitol Hill with its own little cliquish agenda, not the people's wants from different parts of the country with different needs.

I'm convinced repealing the 17th would prevent the liars of the press letting lies dictate how the nation is run.

That would be sooooo cool.


----------



## freedombecki

ABikerSailor said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> They already have.  Remember MI appointing city managers who are able to override the local government and fire officials, sell assets and other things, all without a vote from the people?
> 
> And that is happening in GOP controlled states.
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan votes Democrat a lot.
> 
> Example of GOP states you said are doing likewise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, Michigan is one of 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor of Michigan is the chief executive of the U.S. State of Michigan. The current Governor is Rick Snyder, a member of the Republican Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Governor of Michigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sucks when your partisan talking points gets blown outta the water, eh?  Michigan IS a GOP controlled state.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the Michigan's Detroit Free Press are all GOP? Sorry, ABikerSailor, I visited their website over a 7 year period. The big shots of the Democrats got rid of every last conservative poster employing meanness and shunning. I was the last conservative there. When they started eating my liver too over nothing at all, I left, but I went back and read. All they ever did was drink koolaid and worship leftists. I have a hard time reconciling my 7 years among Michigan posters who decimated people with character assassination that was uncalled for. For the next couple of years after I left, they eventually imploded, and the owner of the website gave up hosting nothing but obfuscations for 24/7/365.

Anyway, thank you for the update. Now which are those other GOP States that are "appointing city managers who are able to override the local government  and fire officials, sell assets and other things, all without a vote  from the people?"

By the way, I am not hostile to your answers, and I am interested in what you have to say.


----------



## ABikerSailor

freedombecki said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michigan votes Democrat a lot.
> 
> Example of GOP states you said are doing likewise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Michigan is one of 'em.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor of Michigan is the chief executive of the U.S. State of Michigan. The current Governor is Rick Snyder, a member of the Republican Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Governor of Michigan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Sucks when your partisan talking points gets blown outta the water, eh?  Michigan IS a GOP controlled state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so the Michigan's Detroit Free Press are all GOP? Sorry, ABikerSailor, I visited their website over a 7 year period. The big shots of the Democrats got rid of every last conservative poster employing meanness and shunning. I was the last conservative there. When they started eating my liver too over nothing at all, I left, but I went back and read. All they ever did was drink koolaid and worship leftists. I have a hard time reconciling my 7 years among Michigan posters who decimated people with character assassination that was uncalled for. For the next couple of years after I left, they eventually imploded, and the owner of the website gave up hosting nothing but obfuscations for 24/7/365.
> 
> Anyway, thank you for the update. Now which are those other GOP States that are "appointing city managers who are able to override the local government  and fire officials, sell assets and other things, all without a vote  from the people?"
> 
> By the way, I am not hostile to your answers, and I am interested in what you have to say.
Click to expand...


So............it's not a GOP controlled state if the governor is a Republican?  You may wish to check out the makeup of the rest of the state government, you'll find it's mainly GOP types in office from the landslide of 2010.


----------



## Toro

One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are.  America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.


----------



## jillian

Toro said:


> One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are.  America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.



what positions has romney taken that differe from the most extreme on the right?


----------



## Toro

jillian said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are.  America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what positions has romney taken that differe from the most extreme on the right?
Click to expand...


Romney has what to do with this thread?


----------



## Listening

Dante said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Sallow, you know *precisely *why it's needed. Remember...balance between the large states and the small states. The Senate is where Rhode Island can avoid getting trampled by New York. I can think of a lot of states that would have a very strong opinion about getting rid of the Senate. In addition to RI there's Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the reason for the _Electoral College._
> 
> _I'm sure the left would like to see that repealed._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for all of you newcomers to USMB ----- T is here =  alert!
Click to expand...


And if there was a smiley that was a brown pile of fresh cow crapp, it would be associated with your name a great deal.

T is absolutely corrent in what he says.


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are.  America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what positions has romney taken that differe from the most extreme on the right?
Click to expand...


And who defines what is extreme...shillian ?


----------



## Listening

Dante said:


> *MuadDib is USMB's latest, biggest, blowhard*
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.
> 
> According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It functions as intended. Simpletons like you mistake process of elections for governing.
Click to expand...


Sorry there moron, but it does not function as intended.

And it is whose doing the electing that is the key point in all this.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

jillian said:


> I love how rightingnuts are whining about the house that's keeping the nutbars in the House under control. If it was reversed and the House was dem, you'd be saying that only the senate should exist.
> 
> The pretend constitutionalists hate the constitution. It's so funny.



Actually dumb ass the person saying the Senate should be abolished is a liberal.


----------



## Annie

Toro said:


> One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are.  America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.



It used to be.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Senate balances the demographic and regional needs of the nation, is necessary for separation of powers plus checks/balances, and broadens the powers of the voting base.


----------



## Old Rocks

MuadDib said:


> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.
> 
> According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *chosen by the Legislature thereof*, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, US Senators were not elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives were elected by the people to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was *appointed by the state legislatures* to represent the inerests of the states.  That kept senators out of the political process.
> 
> That was changed 1910 by the progressives when they changed that with the 17th Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *elected by the people thereof, for six years*; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
> 
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Hilarity ensues!
Click to expand...


*There were all too many cases of the Senate seat being bought. Some were done openly to the point that even the other Senators rebelled. That is how the 17th Amendment came about. A good Amendment, and we will keep it, thank you.*


William A. Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clark yearned to be a statesman and used his newspaper, the Butte Miner, to push his political ambitions. At this time, Butte was one of the largest cities in the West. He became a hero in Helena, Montana, by campaigning for its election as the state capital instead of Anaconda. This battle for the placement of the capital had subtle Irish vs. English, Catholic vs. Protestant, and Masonic vs. non-Masonic elements. Clark's long-standing dream of becoming a United States Senator resulted in scandal in 1899 when it was revealed that he bribed members of the Montana State Legislature in return for their votes. At the time, U.S. Senators were chosen by their respective state legislators; the corruption of his election contributed to the passage of the 17th Amendment. The U.S. Senate refused to seat Clark because of the 1899 bribery scheme, but a later senate campaign was successful, and he served a single term from 1901 until 1907. In responding to criticism of his bribery of the Montana legislature, Clark is reported to have said, "I never bought a man who wasn't for sale."[4]


----------



## Oddball

Toro said:


> One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are.  America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.


Democracy schlemocracy.

The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Which is a better than an elitist "society of equals".


----------



## Oddball

Yeah, right.

Unrepentant criminals like Dianne Frankenstein and Harry Reid, along with career pinhead demagogues like Chuck Schumer, are soooooooo much better a bargain.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Than a Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? The problem is not our elected reps so much, Oddball, as it is us, the American electorate, who elect exactly the type of reps we deserve.


----------



## Peach

JakeStarkey said:


> Than a Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? The problem is not our elected reps so much, Oddball, as it is us, the American electorate, who elect exactly the type of reps we deserve.



Yes, old quote: we get the government we deserve.......................


----------



## Oddball

JakeStarkey said:


> Than a Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? The problem is not our elected reps so much, Oddball, as it is us, the American electorate, who elect exactly the type of reps we deserve.


Boehner isn't in the Senate, fool.

The reason Senators were appointed by state legislatures and seated by the Governors was so that the states had a say in federal spending....It wasn't any machination to prevent cronyism or dopey corrupt politicians from populating the District of Criminals, which is going to happen no matter what you do.

An additional upshot is that the Senators would be rotated in and out on a fairly regular basis, as the makeup of the legislatures of the several states changed over time, rather than having douchebags like Byrd and McQuisling just planting themselves in the Senate for life.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Your comment about Boehner is merely a red herring as well as a typical doosh rant.

I know the elitist tripe that you put out as to "why" the 17th never should have been ratified or what it should be repealed now.

Your arguments were wrong then and they are wrong now.


----------



## Oddball

The subject is the Senate...Boehner isn't in the Senate...Popular election of HoR members has been SOP since day one...And you're still a nitwit.

The reasons for the HoR and Senate being set up the way they were is an historical fact, that only a completely ignorant, dishonest and detached poseur chump like you could disregard.

You may now return to genuflecting to your golden idol of Woodrow Wilson.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Implying your red herring is not a red herring is a red herring itself.  Let it go, or the 'nit wit' term is yours alone.

Only "a completely ignorant, dishonest and detached" hack ignores that history changes, and that we are not bound by your interp of what the Founders meant, oh chumply one.

When are you ever going to offer anything of real interest. This mantra of yours, this insipid libertarianism, is so boring.


----------



## Oddball

There's no red herring....The topic is the Senate, therefore members of the HoRs are entirely irrelevant.

And you're still a completely ignorant, dishonest and detached poseur chump on the topic at hand, which is the 17th Amendment and why the houses of the legislature were set up the way they were by the framers  of the republic.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Why drag a red herring that is smelling so badly, Odd?

You are a ignorant libertarian (that's redundant) for sure, aren't you?

If Americans agreed with your silliness, we could repeal the 17th, which would be stupid and unnecessary and won't happen in our lifetimes.

You simply do not comprehend the American narrative, its history, or Americanism.


----------



## Listening

JakeStarkey said:


> Implying your red herring is not a red herring is a red herring itself.  Let it go, or the 'nit wit' term is yours alone.
> 
> Only "a completely ignorant, dishonest and detached" hack ignores that *history changes*, and that we are not bound by your interp of what the Founders meant, oh chumply one.
> 
> When are you ever going to offer anything of real interest. This mantra of yours, this insipid libertarianism, is so boring.



I thought history was history ?

This is an intereting admission.  Can you explain more.

For sure we are not bound by anything and an argument to repeal the 17th is not going to be based on the past.  It is going to be based on the fact that in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states.  I live in one state.  I care more about what happens in that state and have more impact on it than the other 49.  So, I really don't have much value for getting to wrapped up in what they do other than to learn what they are doing well and hope we can apply it here.

If a state makes a mistake, then a small portion of the country suffers and they change it.  If Obama makes a mistake (which is about every 10 seconds), the whole country has to deal with it and changing things is very very difficult.

So, regardless of what you say happened (and what are you going to do to change it ?), what we are looking at is the here and now.  If it wasn't that way to start, it still makes sense to do it that way now.

When this country was formed, the population was 6,000,000 people.  Now, that is the population of a smaller to mid-sized state.  Why would we not want to operate more independently ?


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BluePhantom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Sallow, you know *precisely *why it's needed. Remember...balance between the large states and the small states. The Senate is where Rhode Island can avoid getting trampled by New York. I can think of a lot of states that would have a very strong opinion about getting rid of the Senate. In addition to RI there's Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the reason for the _Electoral College._
> 
> _I'm sure the left would like to see that repealed._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> for all of you newcomers to USMB ----- T is here =  alert!
Click to expand...




loserthread


----------



## Dante

Listening said:


> ... in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states.
> 
> ...





federal power out of D.C.? are you so fucking stupid you believe states will do what is needed for national unity?  without a strong national government we are back to a confederation of states, which was a complete failure right out of the gate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Listening said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Implying your red herring is not a red herring is a red herring itself.  Let it go, or the 'nit wit' term is yours alone.
> 
> Only "a completely ignorant, dishonest and detached" hack ignores that *history changes*, and that we are not bound by your interp of what the Founders meant, oh chumply one.
> 
> When are you ever going to offer anything of real interest. This mantra of yours, this insipid libertarianism, is so boring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought history was history ?
> 
> This is an intereting admission.  Can you explain more.
> 
> For sure we are not bound by anything and an argument to repeal the 17th is not going to be based on the past.  It is going to be based on the fact that in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states.  I live in one state.  I care more about what happens in that state and have more impact on it than the other 49.  So, I really don't have much value for getting to wrapped up in what they do other than to learn what they are doing well and hope we can apply it here.
> 
> If a state makes a mistake, then a small portion of the country suffers and they change it.  If Obama makes a mistake (which is about every 10 seconds), the whole country has to deal with it and changing things is very very difficult.
> 
> So, regardless of what you say happened (and what are you going to do to change it ?), what we are looking at is the here and now.  If it wasn't that way to start, it still makes sense to do it that way now.
> 
> When this country was formed, the population was 6,000,000 people.  Now, that is the population of a smaller to mid-sized state.  Why would we not want to operate more independently ?
Click to expand...


History is not static, it is an ongoing process of development, a continuing narrative.

The proper process is amendment.  If the anti-17thers can get the super majorities, then I would surely abide by it.  I trust the American people far more than I do state legislatures.


----------



## Sallow

Navy1960 said:


> Hey good idea,  get rid of the Senate and then what would you do when you find yourselves at the whim of say, California, New York,  etc. ? and you just happen to say live in Wyoming?  Well the answer is tough,  as the house being the only body that matters and as it represents  the   "people" and the vast majority of those people are  are in a small number of states, then it passes that the legislation that will pass will represent that.  Theres a reason for the Senate, now while it at times seems to be slow and in disagreement with the House, that is exactly why it is there.  It exists so that those people who live in states like Arizona, Alabama, Maine, take your pick don't find ourselves with the same laws that don't fit our states like they do in say, California, or Texas, etc.  One more thing of note here,  with no Senate, that would mark a shift away from the current form of Govt. we enjoy now and move towards a  " majority rules" Govt.  so I thought it worth reminding everyone of something.
> 
> If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... John Adam's



We've got multiple checks against "majorities" while at the same time we have people saying that the majority of Americans agree with them.

Well? Which is it?


----------



## Sallow

BluePhantom said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get rid of the Senate, altogether.
> 
> Really..why is it needed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Come on Sallow, you know *precisely *why it's needed.  Remember...balance between the large states and the small states.  The Senate is where Rhode Island can avoid getting trampled by New York.  I can think of a lot of states that would have a very strong opinion about getting rid of the Senate.  In addition to RI there's Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc
Click to expand...


We have both an a electoral college and a senate to "protect" the rights of the small states. Additionally we have states imposing all sorts of hurdles to voting. And now..we have about 41% of the electorate that can vote..actually voting. That's with the Citizen's United deal thrown in for good measure.

That bodes well for democracy, how, exactly?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Dante said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> federal power out of D.C.? are you so fucking stupid you believe states will do what is needed for national unity?  without a strong national government we are back to a confederation of states, which was a complete failure right out of the gate.
Click to expand...


Hes your classic conservative  he wants to return to a time when schools were segregated, women couldnt vote, and 10 year olds worked in factories 80 hours a week. 

The good ol days.


----------



## Sallow

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> federal power out of D.C.? are you so fucking stupid you believe states will do what is needed for national unity?  without a strong national government we are back to a confederation of states, which was a complete failure right out of the gate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hes your classic conservative  he wants to return to a time when schools were segregated, women couldnt vote, and 10 year olds worked in factories 80 hours a week.
> 
> The good ol days.
Click to expand...


It's kind of worse then that.

The "Classic Liberal" is yearning for the days when a person could own another person. Like property.


----------



## Dante

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> federal power out of D.C.? are you so fucking stupid you believe states will do what is needed for national unity?  without a strong national government we are back to a confederation of states, which was a complete failure right out of the gate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hes your classic conservative  he wants to return to a time when schools were segregated, women couldnt vote, and 10 year olds worked in factories 80 hours a week.
> 
> The good ol days.
Click to expand...




Dante, a classic conservative? 











whooeeeeeeeeee!


----------



## Toro

Oddball said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are.  America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy schlemocracy.
> 
> The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.
Click to expand...


And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.


----------



## Dante

Oddball said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are.  America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy schlemocracy.
> 
> The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.
Click to expand...


half good


----------



## Sallow

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are.  America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy schlemocracy.
> 
> The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.
Click to expand...


 Exactly.

Dead on.


----------



## Dante

Sallow said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy schlemocracy.
> 
> The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Dead on.
Click to expand...


not much wrong with the US system. It is the process that has been corrupted.

no system is perfect. no system will ever be perfect, and all process will be corrupted over a period of time as corruption is driven in part, by human nature.


----------



## konradv

Dante said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Dead on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not much wrong with the US system. It is the process that has been corrupted.
> 
> no system is perfect. no system will ever be perfect, and all process will be corrupted over a period of time as corruption is driven in part, by human nature.
Click to expand...


True!  That's why I support public financing of elections.  Humans are prone to corruption, if it's made easy.  Remove the temptation and let the better parts of human nature shine through.


----------



## SayMyName

MuadDib said:


> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.
> 
> According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *chosen by the Legislature thereof*, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, US Senators were not elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives were elected by the people to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was *appointed by the state legislatures* to represent the inerests of the states.  That kept senators out of the political process.
> 
> That was changed 1910 by the progressives when they changed that with the 17th Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *elected by the people thereof, for six years*; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
> 
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Hilarity ensues!
Click to expand...


I agree it should be repealed.


----------



## Oddball

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are.  America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy schlemocracy.
> 
> The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.
Click to expand...

And a popularly elected Senate is merely an extension of the party man mob rule exercised in the HorR....The suckage of bicameral mobocracy is hardly any kind of equitable trade.

Add to that the fact that a popularly elected Senate seat has very nearly become a lifetime appointment.

Moreover, the parliamentary systems in Canada and the UK aren't comparable to the much more balanced small "r" republican model, as originally set forth in America.


----------



## freedombecki

Sallow said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy schlemocracy.
> 
> The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Dead on.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The Framers had it right. The Senators should have always been appointed by the State legislatures to prevent precisely what the founders knew would happen: mob rule. They are not responsible for the sick show America can watch any time day or night on C-Span of Senators getting up on the floor and mooning the other Senators over genuine and positive political tripe.

If Senators were appointed by states now as the Constitution provided, we would not have two ring circuses, only one. It's okay to have one three-ring circus, so long as the other brings reason and objectivity into the mix.

Reason and objectivity haven't been around the halls of Congress since the 17th Amendment was adopted and pwned the Constitution.

I've read both sides here, and I am convinced those who favor abolishing the 17th Amendment would bring that reason and logic back to this nation once again.

I've read every post.

Then listen to the words of someone who lived over a hundred years ago, maybe closer to 200 and taught one of America's favorite sons a lesson just by winning an argument in favor of deciding issues within the parameter of the original Constitution and what it does and does not provide:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0]Davy Crockett - Not Yours to Give - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## rightwinger

freedombecki said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Dead on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't. The Framers had it right. The Senators should have always been appointed by the State legislatures to prevent precisely what the founders knew would happen: mob rule. They are not responsible for the sick show America can watch any time day or night on C-Span of Senators getting up on the floor and mooning the other Senators over genuine and positive political tripe.
> 
> If Senators were appointed by states now as the Constitution provided, we would not have two ring circuses, only one. It's okay to have one three-ring circus, so long as the other brings reason and objectivity into the mix.
> 
> Reason and objectivity haven't been around the halls of Congress since the 17th Amendment was adopted and pwned the Constitution.
> 
> I've read both sides here, and I am convinced those who favor abolishing the 17th Amendment would bring that reason and logic back to this nation once again.
> 
> I've read every post.
> 
> Then listen to the words of someone who lived over a hundred years ago, maybe closer to 200 and taught one of America's favorite sons a lesson just by winning an argument in favor of deciding issues within the parameter of the original Constitution and what it does and does not provide:
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0]Davy Crockett - Not Yours to Give - YouTube[/ame]​
Click to expand...


American democracy is now "mob rule"?

Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> American democracy is now "mob rule"?


Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.



rightwinger said:


> Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat


Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!


----------



## American Horse

freedombecki said:


> [ ... ] The Framers had it right. The Senators should have always been appointed by the State legislatures to prevent precisely what the founders knew would happen: mob rule. They are not responsible for the sick show America can watch any time day or night on C-Span of Senators getting up on the floor and mooning the other Senators over genuine and positive political tripe.
> 
> If Senators were appointed by states now as the Constitution provided, we would not have two ring circuses, only one. It's okay to have one three-ring circus, so long as the other brings reason and objectivity into the mix.
> 
> Reason and objectivity haven't been around the halls of Congress since the 17th Amendment was adopted and pwned the Constitution.
> 
> I've read both sides here, and I am convinced those who favor abolishing the 17th Amendment would bring that reason and logic back to this nation once again.
> 
> I've read every post.[ ... ]




Becki, that is a sound post.  The House is actually degraded by not having a superior model to fashion itself after.  Since the 17th Amend, there are no adults in the "room" as a foil to thte lower house.


----------



## konradv

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> American democracy is now "mob rule"?
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!
Click to expand...


That's not because of how they're selected, but how the selection is funded.  Who's buying Senate votes?  Follow the money.


----------



## freedombecki

rightwinger said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> Dead on.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't. The Framers had it right. The Senators should have always been appointed by the State legislatures to prevent precisely what the founders knew would happen: mob rule. They are not responsible for the sick show America can watch any time day or night on C-Span of Senators getting up on the floor and mooning the other Senators over genuine and positive political tripe.
> 
> If Senators were appointed by states now as the Constitution provided, we would not have two ring circuses, only one. It's okay to have one three-ring circus, so long as the other brings reason and objectivity into the mix.
> 
> Reason and objectivity haven't been around the halls of Congress since the 17th Amendment was adopted and pwned the Constitution.
> 
> I've read both sides here, and I am convinced those who favor abolishing the 17th Amendment would bring that reason and logic back to this nation once again.
> 
> I've read every post.
> 
> Then listen to the words of someone who lived over a hundred years ago, maybe closer to 200 and taught one of America's favorite sons a lesson just by winning an argument in favor of deciding issues within the parameter of the original Constitution and what it does and does not provide:
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0"]Davy Crockett - Not Yours to Give - YouTube[/ame]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> American democracy is now "mob rule"?
> 
> Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat
Click to expand...

As in Mayor Blagovich's office less than 4 years ago? He wouldn't have gotten notice if for every 100 words he says, 15 of them are the F-word.

The Senate should be reinstated to its former Honor-above-all status and its attention to what is good for states rights.

Without a reasoning and logical body acquired by appointment and not stump promises, the Constitution is frittering away, faster and faster with each passing day.

The only senators who get elected in mob-rule states are power mongers, eager to spend other peoples' money.

Can't pass a budget? That's because popular people have this tendency to go for lesser peoples' necks, whereas scholars go for the objective of doing the right thing within the parameters of the rules, not the rules as the mob would like them to be.

Please re-examine the posts of those who favor abolishing the 17th Amendment in order to restore the Constitution. They hit some truly raw nerves, I know, but they're on track for the only way this republic is going to continue to thrive. Pulling out all the stops the founders intended had bad consequences, namely the failure to pass a budget to eliminate yet one more parameter of logic and reason--spending more money than you have to work with.


----------



## Oddball

konradv said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> American democracy is now "mob rule"?
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not because of how they're selected, but how the selection is funded.  Who's buying Senate votes?  Follow the money.
Click to expand...

In the instance I spoke of, the US taxpayer was put on the hook for those bought votes.

Distasteful and corrupt as the practice is, I find people buying votes with their own money far less repugnent than picking my pocket to do so.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> American democracy is now "mob rule"?
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!
Click to expand...


That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> American democracy is now "mob rule"?
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?
Click to expand...

What doesn't happen with appointed Senators is out-of-control federal spending and bureaucratic bloat, as apportionment meant that state agencies were the ones collecting and forwarding all federal taxes....Hence, Senators had very strong motivation to keep the HoR in check and the feds in their box.

Since the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the size of the federal gubmint has swelled from a scant few percent of GDP to very nearly 1/4....This is no coincidence.


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> American democracy is now "mob rule"?
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?
Click to expand...


How will they buy the votes ?

Senators that are accountable to states will look at things differently.

That isn't to say this would be perfect, but at least we could kick the hell out of state legislators who select these clowns if one of them goes awry.

I have no expectation that things will get a great deal better until we get a lot more interested in what is going on.

But it would be an improvement by far (in terms of holding the kinds of dialogue we want to hold).


----------



## freedombecki

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> American democracy is now "mob rule"?
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?
Click to expand...

Rightwinger, a long time ago, I had a boss (CPA) who literally and physically screamed a guy from the back office all the way to out the front door where his last words were "And don't you ever come back here!"

After he went back to his office, I asked one of the other ladies up front what in the world was wrong with Mr. Bates? She said, "Oh, nothing, he does it all the time." 

As time went on, and after things had settled down, I asked quietly another CPA why Mr. Bates was so angry. He looked up at me over his rimmed glasses, and said "The guy was a crook." Huh? "But he was so polite, how do you know he was a crook?" I queried. "Because he wanted a CPA to post date a payment he had not made yet to cover his butt for probably stealing money from the business." "oh."

Senators have the task of making laws that stick. We need some wise men there, not just a pretty face with nothing in the head.

The bottom line is, if you eliminate intellect and integrity from the final signers of necessary legislation, you're letting emotion run the government.

That's how Rome burned and Nero fiddled as he watched. It was burning because the leadership didn't give a rat's patoot.

We need to get back to saner law-making proceedures. Those who brought this topic up really hit at the wrong turn America has taken since then. The slight decline we've seen over the last 100 years has taken a 90-degree plummet to planet earth thanks to the information age, and we're near disaster.

Let's let the Constitution do what it was intended to do, not what emotions do to end this Bill of Rights privilege and that one.

Appoint wise men to the Senate as determined by State Legislators who know who's intellectual gold, and we will indeed see a good outcome.

Buying a seat? Enforce that as an offense that carries a 30-year firm sentence for briber and the bribed, and it just won't be happening. 

State Legislators can be like a good CPA. They have good sense for who will represent their state and make them look like the good honest folk they can be when citizens expect them to be. A wise Senator will not allow lesser men destroy the Constitution or play financial feel-good tricks that overburden taxpayers in the long run.


----------



## Wry Catcher

MuadDib said:


> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.
> 
> According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *chosen by the Legislature thereof*, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, US Senators were not elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives were elected by the people to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was *appointed by the state legislatures* to represent the inerests of the states.  That kept senators out of the political process.
> 
> That was changed 1910 by the progressives when they changed that with the 17th Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *elected by the people thereof, for six years*; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
> 
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Hilarity ensues!
Click to expand...


This is one more 'issue' the right wing supports and most of them don't understand why.  Plutocrats want to be able to control the US Senate and will be able to do so if they control state legislatures.  The first step is for the Republicans to limit access to the polls.  By limiting the number of citizens who are likely to vote for a Democrat, the greater the opportunity for the power elite to gain control of the US Senate.


----------



## Listening

Wry Catcher said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.
> 
> According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *chosen by the Legislature thereof*, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, US Senators were not elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives were elected by the people to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was *appointed by the state legislatures* to represent the inerests of the states.  That kept senators out of the political process.
> 
> That was changed 1910 by the progressives when they changed that with the 17th Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *elected by the people thereof, for six years*; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
> 
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Hilarity ensues!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is one more 'issue' the right wing supports and most of them don't understand why.  Plutocrats want to be able to control the US Senate and will be able to do so if they control state legislatures.  The first step is for the Republicans to limit access to the polls.  By limiting the number of citizens who are likely to vote for a Democrat, the greater the opportunity for the power elite to gain control of the US Senate.
Click to expand...


Pure nonsense.

We will vote for the people who will do the chosing.  It is perfectly in line with bringing control back to the local level.

Most on the right and on the left don't understand how it was set up to begin with and why.  Given the left's aversion to states powers (solve everything in the SCOTUS where unelected scions of their philosophy can make up crap in favor of liberal values...i.e. the Warren Court....), it is easy to understand why the would not want them appointed.

The senate would appoint members of the court who would only do the minimal in disrputing the legislative process.  More importantly, they would appointe people who would not, themselves, legislate from the bench.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.
> 
> 
> Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What doesn't happen with appointed Senators is out-of-control federal spending and bureaucratic bloat, as apportionment meant that state agencies were the ones collecting and forwarding all federal taxes....Hence, Senators had very strong motivation to keep the HoR in check and the feds in their box.
> 
> Since the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the size of the federal gubmint has swelled from a scant few percent of GDP to very nearly 1/4....This is no coincidence.
Click to expand...


Nonsense...

The era of the 1800s were some of the most corrupt in our history. An appointed Senator has no worries about facing the taxpayer and accounting for his performance. All he has to do is ensure that his party remains in power at the state level. 

The federal government has swelled since the early 1900s because we became a modern democracy and a global superpower. The well being of the people is much better than it was in the 19th century you covet


----------



## JakeStarkey

The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement.  Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.


----------



## rightwinger

freedombecki said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.
> 
> 
> Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rightwinger, a long time ago, I had a boss (CPA) who literally and physically screamed a guy from the back office all the way to out the front door where his last words were "And don't you ever come back here!"
> 
> After he went back to his office, I asked one of the other ladies up front what in the world was wrong with Mr. Bates? She said, "Oh, nothing, he does it all the time."
> 
> As time went on, and after things had settled down, I asked quietly another CPA why Mr. Bates was so angry. He looked up at me over his rimmed glasses, and said "The guy was a crook." Huh? "But he was so polite, how do you know he was a crook?" I queried. "Because he wanted a CPA to post date a payment he had not made yet to cover his butt for probably stealing money from the business." "oh."
> 
> Senators have the task of making laws that stick. We need some wise men there, not just a pretty face with nothing in the head.
> 
> The bottom line is, if you eliminate intellect and integrity from the final signers of necessary legislation, you're letting emotion run the government.
> 
> That's how Rome burned and Nero fiddled as he watched. It was burning because the leadership didn't give a rat's patoot.
> 
> We need to get back to saner law-making proceedures. Those who brought this topic up really hit at the wrong turn America has taken since then. The slight decline we've seen over the last 100 years has taken a 90-degree plummet to planet earth thanks to the information age, and we're near disaster.
> 
> Let's let the Constitution do what it was intended to do, not what emotions do to end this Bill of Rights privilege and that one.
> 
> Appoint wise men to the Senate as determined by State Legislators who know who's intellectual gold, and we will indeed see a good outcome.
> 
> Buying a seat? Enforce that as an offense that carries a 30-year firm sentence for briber and the bribed, and it just won't be happening.
> 
> State Legislators can be like a good CPA. They have good sense for who will represent their state and make them look like the good honest folk they can be when citizens expect them to be. A wise Senator will not allow lesser men destroy the Constitution or play financial feel-good tricks that overburden taxpayers in the long run.
Click to expand...


Nice story....but I am not buying it

I live in one of the most corrupt states in the nation. We still have party bosses who make the decisions on who gets what positions and where the patronage goes. No way do I want those guys selecting my Senators


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?
> 
> 
> 
> What doesn't happen with appointed Senators is out-of-control federal spending and bureaucratic bloat, as apportionment meant that state agencies were the ones collecting and forwarding all federal taxes....Hence, Senators had very strong motivation to keep the HoR in check and the feds in their box.
> 
> Since the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the size of the federal gubmint has swelled from a scant few percent of GDP to very nearly 1/4....This is no coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense...
> 
> The era of the 1800s were some of the most corrupt in our history. An appointed Senator has no worries about facing the taxpayer and accounting for his performance. All he has to do is ensure that his party remains in power at the state level.
> 
> The federal government has swelled since the early 1900s because we became a modern democracy and a global superpower. The well being of the people is much better than it was in the 19th century you covet
Click to expand...

You're changing the nature of the argument.

Nobody here said that appointed Senators wouldn't be subject to corruption...As though the clear corruption going on today is any better a deal.

The point is that state legislature appointment of Senators was a check and balance against federal bureaucracy and spending getting out of control and consuming as much of the GDP as it is today....A check against federal power that was removed by the 17th Amendment.

Your assertion that America became a "modern democracy" is notwithstanding...Mob rule is mob rule, no matter the time frame involved.


----------



## Listening

I love how we are talking about a system for the 21st century and we still get the blatherings about the mid 1800's.  

Regardless of how it worked, the intention was still clear.

What is more obvious is that today's senate is a mess and needs to be changed around.

Propose getting rid of direct election and all of sudden our unlikable senate suddenly becomes very palitable.

It is hyertical.

If BHO proposed it, the asshats on this board could not rush fast enough to get it done.


----------



## Oddball

JakeStarkey said:


> The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement.  Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.


Henry Clay wasn't a constitutional framer, nincompoop.

The only thing breathtaking is your ham-handed attempt to move the goalposts.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What doesn't happen with appointed Senators is out-of-control federal spending and bureaucratic bloat, as apportionment meant that state agencies were the ones collecting and forwarding all federal taxes....Hence, Senators had very strong motivation to keep the HoR in check and the feds in their box.
> 
> Since the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the size of the federal gubmint has swelled from a scant few percent of GDP to very nearly 1/4....This is no coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense...
> 
> The era of the 1800s were some of the most corrupt in our history. An appointed Senator has no worries about facing the taxpayer and accounting for his performance. All he has to do is ensure that his party remains in power at the state level.
> 
> The federal government has swelled since the early 1900s because we became a modern democracy and a global superpower. The well being of the people is much better than it was in the 19th century you covet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're changing the nature of the argument.
> 
> Nobody here said that appointed Senators wouldn't be subject to corruption...As though the clear corruption going on today is any better a deal.
> 
> The point is that state legislature appointment of Senators was a check and balance against federal bureaucracy and spending getting out of control and consuming as much of the GDP as it is today....A check against federal power that was removed by the 17th Amendment.
> 
> Your assertion that America became a "modern democracy" is notwithstanding...Mob rule is mob rule, no matter the time frame involved.
Click to expand...


Now the people of the state are the check and balance against federal bureaucracy instead of state legislatures........I like it better


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Now the people of the state are the check and balance against federal bureaucracy instead of state legislatures........I like it better



Oh Hey !!!

That is really working for us.


----------



## rightwinger

Listening said:


> I love how we are talking about a system for the 21st century and we still get the blatherings about the mid 1800's.
> 
> Regardless of how it worked, the intention was still clear.
> 
> What is more obvious is that today's senate is a mess and needs to be changed around.
> 
> Propose getting rid of direct election and all of sudden our unlikable senate suddenly becomes very palitable.
> 
> It is hyertical.
> 
> If BHO proposed it, the asshats on this board could not rush fast enough to get it done.



The Senate is a mess because filibuster abuse makes it necessary to get 60% of the vote to pass legislation


----------



## Listening

Why Repeal 17th Amendment?

How many times have you had your U.S. Senator approach you and discuss impending legislation with you?  Even though you voted for them, they probably did not contact you once. But how many times do you suppose they contacted Enron about impending legislation. Enron and other corporations financed their campaigns, to the tune of millions of dollars, to get you to vote these senators into office. You can safely bet that your U.S. Senators discuss impending legislation with these corporations on a routine basis.

How often do U.S. Senators discuss federal affairs with your state legislator? I am still looking for a state legislator who has been contacted by their U.S. Senator regarding federal affairs.

Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Senators discussed federal affairs with their state legislators on a regular basis. At THAT time U.S. Senators did not have to raise millions of dollars to run for office. They were not beholden to the large corporations.

There is no way our U.S. Senators are going to personally discuss federal affairs with, and handle the input from, 900,000 people. The only choice we have before us is to have them discuss our federal affairs with the State Legislatures as opposed to the large corporations. As originally included in the U.S. Constitution, the people of the states will continue to enjoy the right to vote for their U.S. Representatives.

I am including the final version of my presentation which I gave today before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee.


----------



## rightwinger

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the people of the state are the check and balance against federal bureaucracy instead of state legislatures........I like it better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Hey !!!
> 
> That is really working for us.
Click to expand...


Works better than it did under the old system


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense...
> 
> The era of the 1800s were some of the most corrupt in our history. An appointed Senator has no worries about facing the taxpayer and accounting for his performance. All he has to do is ensure that his party remains in power at the state level.
> 
> The federal government has swelled since the early 1900s because we became a modern democracy and a global superpower. The well being of the people is much better than it was in the 19th century you covet
> 
> 
> 
> You're changing the nature of the argument.
> 
> Nobody here said that appointed Senators wouldn't be subject to corruption...As though the clear corruption going on today is any better a deal.
> 
> The point is that state legislature appointment of Senators was a check and balance against federal bureaucracy and spending getting out of control and consuming as much of the GDP as it is today....A check against federal power that was removed by the 17th Amendment.
> 
> Your assertion that America became a "modern democracy" is notwithstanding...Mob rule is mob rule, no matter the time frame involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the people of the state are the check and balance against federal bureaucracy instead of state legislatures........I like it better
Click to expand...

Like fucking hell they are.

Senators are now mere national party man hack tools just like House Representatives...Like I said, bicameral mobocracy.


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the people of the state are the check and balance against federal bureaucracy instead of state legislatures........I like it better
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Hey !!!
> 
> That is really working for us.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Works better than it did under the old system
Click to expand...


Only if your idea of "working better" is to allow most power to flow to Washington D.C.

As usual, we find that the discussion boils down to who you want running your life.

Most liberals seem to think the morons we complain about are worthy of even more power.  Hell, let them run health care.

Whereas most conservatives (not including GWB) feel that states powers and a corrleated model at an even smaller level is better.  And all of that is only with minimal input.  My vote for my state senator is roughly 100 times more powerful than my vote form fedeal senator. 

And my state legislator knows me by name.  My federal senators only know their lobbyists by name....

But that system is working better !!!


----------



## Dante

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Hey !!!
> 
> That is really working for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Works better than it did under the old system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if your idea of "working better" is to allow most power to flow to Washington D.C.
> 
> As usual, we find that the discussion boils down to who you want running your life.
> 
> Most liberals seem to think the morons we complain about are worthy of even more power.  Hell, let them run health care.
> 
> Whereas most conservatives (not including GWB) feel that states powers and a corrleated model at an even smaller level is better.  And all of that is only with minimal input.  My vote for my state senator is roughly 100 times more powerful than my vote form fedeal senator.
> 
> And my state legislator knows me by name.  My federal senators only know their lobbyists by name....
> 
> But that system is working better !!!
Click to expand...


  alert!


----------



## rightwinger

Listening said:


> Why Repeal 17th Amendment?
> 
> How many times have you had your U.S. Senator approach you and discuss impending legislation with you?  Even though you voted for them, they probably did not contact you once. But how many times do you suppose they contacted Enron about impending legislation. Enron and other corporations financed their campaigns, to the tune of millions of dollars, to get you to vote these senators into office. You can safely bet that your U.S. Senators discuss impending legislation with these corporations on a routine basis.
> 
> How often do U.S. Senators discuss federal affairs with your state legislator? I am still looking for a state legislator who has been contacted by their U.S. Senator regarding federal affairs.
> 
> Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Senators discussed federal affairs with their state legislators on a regular basis. At THAT time U.S. Senators did not have to raise millions of dollars to run for office. They were not beholden to the large corporations.
> 
> There is no way our U.S. Senators are going to personally discuss federal affairs with, and handle the input from, 900,000 people. The only choice we have before us is to have them discuss our federal affairs with the State Legislatures as opposed to the large corporations. As originally included in the U.S. Constitution, the people of the states will continue to enjoy the right to vote for their U.S. Representatives.
> 
> I am including the final version of my presentation which I gave today before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee.



I expect my US Senator to decide Federal issues and my State legislators to decide state issues. I see no need for them to confer.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're changing the nature of the argument.
> 
> Nobody here said that appointed Senators wouldn't be subject to corruption...As though the clear corruption going on today is any better a deal.
> 
> The point is that state legislature appointment of Senators was a check and balance against federal bureaucracy and spending getting out of control and consuming as much of the GDP as it is today....A check against federal power that was removed by the 17th Amendment.
> 
> Your assertion that America became a "modern democracy" is notwithstanding...Mob rule is mob rule, no matter the time frame involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now the people of the state are the check and balance against federal bureaucracy instead of state legislatures........I like it better
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like fucking hell they are.
> 
> Senators are now mere national party man hack tools just like House Representatives...Like I said, bicameral mobocracy.
Click to expand...


And appointed Senators are state party hack tools.......I'd prefer the people have the right to vote them out of office rather than leave it to state political hacks


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now the people of the state are the check and balance against federal bureaucracy instead of state legislatures........I like it better
> 
> 
> 
> Like fucking hell they are.
> 
> Senators are now mere national party man hack tools just like House Representatives...Like I said, bicameral mobocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And appointed Senators are state party hack tools.......I'd prefer the people have the right to vote them out of office rather than leave it to state political hacks
Click to expand...

Except that they don't get voted out of office....They're basically lifetime offices, unless you get caught with the proverbial live boy or dead woman.

With state appointment, you'd get defacto term limits based upon the changing nature of who controls the states.

But I guess you liberoidals are perfectly fine with being lorded over by a completely detached an unaccountable elite few, just as long as they carry that (D) by their names.


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey said:


> The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement.  Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.



The Oddball Dude, is maybe the most ignorant poster @ USMB


----------



## freedombecki

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What doesn't happen with appointed Senators is out-of-control federal spending and bureaucratic bloat, as apportionment meant that state agencies were the ones collecting and forwarding all federal taxes....Hence, Senators had very strong motivation to keep the HoR in check and the feds in their box.
> 
> Since the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the size of the federal gubmint has swelled from a scant few percent of GDP to very nearly 1/4....This is no coincidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense...
> 
> The era of the 1800s were some of the most corrupt in our history. An appointed Senator has no worries about facing the taxpayer and accounting for his performance. All he has to do is ensure that his party remains in power at the state level.
> 
> The federal government has swelled since the early 1900s because we became a modern democracy and a global superpower. The well being of the people is much better than it was in the 19th century you covet
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're changing the nature of the argument.
> 
> Nobody here said that appointed Senators wouldn't be subject to corruption...As though the clear corruption going on today is any better a deal.
> 
> The point is that state legislature appointment of Senators was a check and balance against federal bureaucracy and spending getting out of control and consuming as much of the GDP as it is today....A check against federal power that was removed by the 17th Amendment.
> 
> Your assertion that America became a "modern democracy" is notwithstanding...*Mob rule is mob rule, no matter the time frame involved*.
Click to expand...

A model of this is punctuated by a House Speaker misusing power to demand that Congress not worry about what's written in the 5-ream mass of papers the Health Care bill was, just pass.

Huh?

That's Congress gone haywire. Then popularly-elected majority Senators did likewise because corrupt election officials in Minnesota took away a Republican seat by "finding just enough votes" for their Democrat candidate to "win". Votes that weren't cast before the end of the voting was completed. The whine and scream on the left was "the right doesn't want these 'lost' votes to count," and of course, the manufactured votes were crammed down America's throat to give the far leftest former Senator, President Barack Obama his bill, that lacked public scrutiny from its massive size.

That was a crime against America disguised as something good for old folks and uninsured children. It will cost trillions of dollars.

Insuring those people would have cost less than 30 million dollars.

The padding in the bill will put a very fewpeople with a lot of spending money in their pockets.

That's because there was not a state-appointed Senate who would have seen through that nation-breaker. The nation breaker part is unionization of all medical personnel in the USA to strike, leave the sick while they take hiatus to riot, and paying customers still paying a premium to be last in line.

I visited an Obama-run IRS office last year. I arrived when the doors opened, was given a ticket after waiting for 2 hours on bone spurred feet to get a calling ticket. My ticket was the last ticket called at 4:30. Those people wanted to go home, so they called the last person who sat in that office for another 6 hours after getting out of the line. They called all the  people who arrived after me before me, and others near me, too. Their claim was that my request was "complicated." 15 minutes after I sat down with an irs agent, my question was answered, I signed the necessary form and was sent out the door with my taxes paid and my business was done.

That's a change for the better?

I saw this: while I waited all day, people were taking half hour breaks in the morning with someone coming around to do their job while they went to coffee. I saw lunch rotations, and an hour later, more half-hour breaks.

The people who worked were having a lark. 150 people, some of who were in as much pain as me, were treated like wallpaper someone would rather not look at.

Feh.


----------



## freedombecki

Dante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement.  Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Oddball Dude, is maybe the most ignorant poster @ USMB
Click to expand...

freedombecki's unspin machine of leftist code language (last 2 sentences) "Oops, there's a bright rightie in the room who gets what happened to the Constitution. Watch yourself around those mentally mature conservative patriots of what caused America's present decline, and play like he is dumb."

See, Dante, I know how you spin room guys are.


----------



## Oddball

Dante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement.  Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Oddball Dude, is maybe the most ignorant poster @ USMB
Click to expand...

Why don't you Google Henry Clay, compare the dates, and tell us all how he was able to be involved in setting up the constitutional structure for the legislative branch?

C'mon....School us all, dickweed.


----------



## freedombecki

Oddball said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement.  Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Oddball Dude, is maybe the most ignorant poster @ USMB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you Google Henry Clay, compare the dates, and tell us all how he was able to be involved in setting up the constitutional structure for the legislative branch?
> 
> C'mon....School us all, dickweed.
Click to expand...


Outta the park!


----------



## Dante

Oddball said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement.  Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Oddball Dude, is maybe the most ignorant poster @ USMB
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you Google Henry Clay, compare the dates, and tell us all how he was able to be involved in setting up the constitutional structure for the legislative branch?
> 
> C'mon....School us all, dickweed.
Click to expand...


Google?


----------



## freedombecki

Dante said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Oddball Dude, is maybe the most ignorant poster @ USMB
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you Google Henry Clay, compare the dates, and tell us all how he was able to be involved in setting up the constitutional structure for the legislative branch?
> 
> C'mon....School us all, dickweed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google?
Click to expand...

You really don't know what to do, do you, Mr. Dante, except to pm opposition posters with 5-letter insults.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> If a state makes a mistake, then a small portion of the country suffers and they change it.



Not necessarily. 

Texas made the mistake of criminalizing homosexuality in violation of the 14th Amendment, for example; the people of Texas refused to correct that mistake. In fact, they refused all the way to the Supreme Court, who corrected the mistake for them, in accordance with the Constitution. 

The problem with reactionary extremists is they whine about the tyranny of the Federal government yet say noting about the tyranny of state and local governments.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oddball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement.  Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Clay wasn't a constitutional framer, nincompoop.
> 
> The only thing breathtaking is your ham-handed attempt to move the goalposts.
Click to expand...


But Clay was appointed by the Kentucky state legislature, which is the point, not where you are moving the goal posts.  Your ignorance and lack of education concering the American story boggles the minds of those who understand it.  But, then again, you are a typically illiterate wannabee so-called libertarian.  Clay would label you the fool that you are clearly demonstrated that you are to the entire board.


----------



## freedombecki

JakeStarkey said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement.  Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Clay wasn't a constitutional framer, nincompoop.
> 
> The only thing breathtaking is your ham-handed attempt to move the goalposts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Clay was appointed by the Kentucky state legislature, which is the point, not where you are moving the goal posts.  Your ignorance and lack of education concering the American story boggles the minds of those who understand it.  But, then again, you are a typically illiterate wannabee so-called libertarian.  Clay would label you the fool that you are clearly demonstrated that you are to the entire board.
Click to expand...

Clay's birth occurred in 1777. The Constitution was ratified by states in the years 1787-88. I don't think Secretary of State Clay was one of the founders. In fact, when he did come to power, he overthrew many founding principles with taxation schemes and things,* several decades *later.

Furthermore, the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913, 61 years after Henry Clay died.


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement.  Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.
> 
> 
> 
> Henry Clay wasn't a constitutional framer, nincompoop.
> 
> The only thing breathtaking is your ham-handed attempt to move the goalposts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But Clay was appointed by the Kentucky state legislature, which is the point, not where you are moving the goal posts.  Your ignorance and lack of education concering the American story boggles the minds of those who understand it.  But, then again, you are a typically illiterate wannabee so-called libertarian.  Clay would label you the fool that you are clearly demonstrated that you are to the entire board.
Click to expand...


the thing  The Right Wing Lunacy Posts and the Libertarian Randian Nitwits have in common is their complete misreading of others posts. 

It's not always spin or deflection. most times it's just idiocy


----------



## JakeStarkey

No one gives a flip that Clay was not a Founder. He was, however, operating under the system of the original Constitution until the 17th amendment was ratified.  Clay is proof positive that the Senate was not a curb on the House.  To suggest that is pure revelation of our American narrative.  Study his American Plan and see who supported the use of federal funds for internal improvements.


----------



## Dante

American System (economic plan) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dante is assuming that the far right gives a crap about learning the actual American narrative.  Me thinketh he assumeth too mucheth.


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey said:


> No one gives a flip that Clay was not a Founder. He was, however, operating under the system of the original Constitution until the 17th amendment was ratified.  Clay is proof positive that the Senate was not a curb on the House.  To suggest that is pure revelation of our American narrative.  Study his American Plan and see who supported the use of federal funds for internal improvements.



Funny, I do not agree with your arguments about Senate, but agree with your arguments about Clay.

Was the Senate supposed to be a curb on the House? And is not always getting their way make the Senate irrelevant to original purpose? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one gives a flip that Clay was not a Founder. He was, however, operating under the system of the original Constitution until the 17th amendment was ratified.  Clay is proof positive that the Senate was not a curb on the House.  To suggest that is pure revelation of our American narrative.  Study his American Plan and see who supported the use of federal funds for internal improvements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I do not agree with your arguments about Senate, but agree with your arguments about Clay.
> 
> Was the Senate supposed to be a curb on the House? And is not always getting their way make the Senate irrelevant to original purpose? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.
Click to expand...


Minds of good will and balance can agree to disagree.  Nothing is perfect.  Other than Odd.  Ask him.


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey said:


> Dante is assuming that the far right gives a crap about learning the actual American narrative.  Me thinketh he assumeth too mucheth.



actually you give them to much credit. you assume they know what you know and understand it too. I think many fools know what I know. Where we part is understanding. Most people imagine things, confusing thoughts with understanding. There is an easier way to describe this, but why bother? Most people here lack keen critical thinking skills. 

you create an opponent worthy of battle in your mind when you misunderstand the right wing lunatics. 

I am not so kind or needy. I know Oddball Dude and his ilk are unworthy of serious argument


----------



## Dante

JakeStarkey said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one gives a flip that Clay was not a Founder. He was, however, operating under the system of the original Constitution until the 17th amendment was ratified.  Clay is proof positive that the Senate was not a curb on the House.  To suggest that is pure revelation of our American narrative.  Study his American Plan and see who supported the use of federal funds for internal improvements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I do not agree with your arguments about Senate, but agree with your arguments about Clay.
> 
> Was the Senate supposed to be a curb on the House? And is not always getting their way make the Senate irrelevant to original purpose? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Minds of good will and balance can agree to disagree.  Nothing is perfect.  Other than Odd.  Ask him.
Click to expand...


OMFG! You have compromised yourself in their eyes. You've treated an opposing view as worthy of respect. Shame!!!


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the 17th Amendment cant be repealed in good faith, as the motive of supporters of such an action is purely partisan.


----------



## Toro

Oddball said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democracy schlemocracy.
> 
> The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And a popularly elected Senate is merely an extension of the party man mob rule exercised in the HorR....The suckage of bicameral mobocracy is hardly any kind of equitable trade.
> 
> Add to that the fact that a popularly elected Senate seat has very nearly become a lifetime appointment.
> 
> Moreover, the parliamentary systems in Canada and the UK aren't comparable to the much more balanced small "r" republican model, as originally set forth in America.
Click to expand...


I've never understood this argument from people who claim to be libertarians or conservatives.  According to the political right, government is a total fuck-up.  It can't do anything right.  We should leave it to the market.  People should have as much say over their daily lives and choices and the government should have less because people know more about their wants and needs than the government.  But according to those who say we should appoint Senators, giving more power to government officials and taking away the individual's choice is a good thing.  Appointing Senators means government officials dictate to you how you are going to be governed and takes away the choice of the individual.  IOW, Big Gubmint knows best on how everyone should be governed than the individual.  It's a big contradiction.

Another argument is that the Founding Fathers knew what was best when they appointed Senators because it would lead to mob rule.  If they knew best, they also knew best that the document they had written wasn't infallible.  They understood that times change.  That's why they put in a mechanism to amend the Constitution.  They knew best that even if the principals they espoused were timeless, the law and how people were governed was not.  The law and how individuals are governed changes throughout time.  The constitution was written 225 years ago.  It was not written exactly for 2012, 225 years later, anymore than it was written exactly for 1562, 225 years prior.  So even though the principals may be timeless, the law is not.


----------



## Dante

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the 17th Amendment cant be repealed in good faith, as the motive of supporters of such an action is purely partisan.



good faith? In the democratic process?   you truly are a political innocent. you get a gold star here.


----------



## Toro

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like fucking hell they are.
> 
> Senators are now mere national party man hack tools just like House Representatives...Like I said, bicameral mobocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And appointed Senators are state party hack tools.......I'd prefer the people have the right to vote them out of office rather than leave it to state political hacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except that they don't get voted out of office....They're basically lifetime offices, unless you get caught with the proverbial live boy or dead woman.
> 
> With state appointment, you'd get defacto term limits based upon the changing nature of who controls the states.
> 
> But I guess you liberoidals are perfectly fine with being lorded over by a completely detached an unaccountable elite few, just as long as they carry that (D) by their names.
Click to expand...


The average tenure for a US Senator is 11-13 years.  Google "average duration of a senator" and it comes up.

So they aren't lifetime offices.


----------



## Toro

Listening said:


> Why Repeal 17th Amendment?
> 
> How many times have you had your U.S. Senator approach you and discuss impending legislation with you?  Even though you voted for them, they probably did not contact you once. But how many times do you suppose they contacted Enron about impending legislation. Enron and other corporations financed their campaigns, to the tune of millions of dollars, to get you to vote these senators into office. You can safely bet that your U.S. Senators discuss impending legislation with these corporations on a routine basis.
> 
> How often do U.S. Senators discuss federal affairs with your state legislator? I am still looking for a state legislator who has been contacted by their U.S. Senator regarding federal affairs.
> 
> Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Senators discussed federal affairs with their state legislators on a regular basis. At THAT time U.S. Senators did not have to raise millions of dollars to run for office. They were not beholden to the large corporations.
> 
> There is no way our U.S. Senators are going to personally discuss federal affairs with, and handle the input from, 900,000 people. The only choice we have before us is to have them discuss our federal affairs with the State Legislatures as opposed to the large corporations. As originally included in the U.S. Constitution, the people of the states will continue to enjoy the right to vote for their U.S. Representatives.
> 
> I am including the final version of my presentation which I gave today before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee.



One reason why we have the 17th amendment is because Senator offices were bought and sold like property.  There were several investigations into corruption on Senate seats in the 19th century.  All appointing Senators would do is flow the corruption from the national level to the state level.

FTR, the largest contributor to Jeb Bush's gubernatorial campaigns was Enron.  Those contributions to Bush and the state Republican party would have skyrocketed exponentially had the state appointed Senators.


----------



## Oddball

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> And a popularly elected Senate is merely an extension of the party man mob rule exercised in the HorR....The suckage of bicameral mobocracy is hardly any kind of equitable trade.
> 
> Add to that the fact that a popularly elected Senate seat has very nearly become a lifetime appointment.
> 
> Moreover, the parliamentary systems in Canada and the UK aren't comparable to the much more balanced small "r" republican model, as originally set forth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never understood this argument from people who claim to be libertarians or conservatives.  According to the political right, government is a total fuck-up.  It can't do anything right.  We should leave it to the market.  People should have as much say over their daily lives and choices and the government should have less because people know more about their wants and needs than the government.  But according to those who say we should appoint Senators, giving more power to government officials and taking away the individual's choice is a good thing.  Appointing Senators means government officials dictate to you how you are going to be governed and takes away the choice of the individual.  IOW, Big Gubmint knows best on how everyone should be governed than the individual.  It's a big contradiction.
> 
> Another argument is that the Founding Fathers knew what was best when they appointed Senators because it would lead to mob rule.  If they knew best, they also knew best that the document they had written wasn't infallible.  They understood that times change.  That's why they put in a mechanism to amend the Constitution.  They knew best that even if the principals they espoused were timeless, the law and how people were governed was not.  The law and how individuals are governed changes throughout time.  The constitution was written 225 years ago.  It was not written exactly for 2012, 225 years later, anymore than it was written exactly for 1562, 225 years prior.  So even though the principals may be timeless, the law is not.
Click to expand...

You get your choice for Senators at the state level, when you vote for your state legislatures and Governor....Therefore, when you have the natural turnover which occurs within the state houses, then your Senators also tend to turn over, rather than them being a reflection of how your state operated several decades ago....Then you don't have a basically imperial Senate, populated with fossils like Dole, McCain, Kennedy, Byrd, Lugar, ad nauseum, hanging around like herpes.

Claiming libertarians are saying that the Constitution as originally set forth was perfect is a red herring....Nobody is saying that....That said, the 17th Amendment, coupled with the 16th Amendment and the creation of the Fed -all coincidentally(?) in the same year no less- all removed three important constraints on centralizing power in a faraway capital, as the framers clearly sought to avoid, in one fell swoop.

And, as I pointed out earlier, federal spending and bureaucracy has swelled in the last century, from the scant couple of percent it was for the first 150 years of America's existence, to a level approaching 1/4 of all GDP...If you want to claim that this is all coincidental, I have a bridge I want to sell you.


----------



## Dante

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britor. It sucks.
> 
> 
> 
> And a popularly elected Senate is merely an extension of the party man mob rule exercised in the HorR....The suckage of bicameral mobocracy is hardly any kind of equitable trade.
> 
> Add to that the fact that a popularly elected Senate seat has very nearly become a lifetime appointment.
> 
> Moreover, the parliamentary systems in Canada and the UK aren't comparable to the much more balanced small "r" republican model, as originally set forth in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never understood this argument from people who claim to be libertarians or conservatives.  According to the political right, government is a total fuck-up.  It can't do anything right.  We should leave it to the market.  People should have as much say over their daily lives and choices and the government should have less because people know more about their wants and needs than the government.  But according to those who say we should appoint Senators, giving more power to government officials and taking away the individual's choice is a good thing.  Appointing Senators means government officials dictate to you how you are going to be governed and takes away the choice of the individual.  IOW, Big Gubmint knows best on how everyone should be governed than the individual.  It's a big contradiction.
> 
> Another argument is that the Founding Fathers knew what was best when they appointed Senators because it would lead to mob rule.  If they knew best, they also knew best that the document they had written wasn't infallible.  They understood that times change.  That's why they put in a mechanism to amend the Constitution.  They knew best that even if the principals they espoused were timeless, the law and how people were governed was not.  The law and how individuals are governed changes throughout time.  The constitution was written 225 years ago.  It was not written exactly for 2012, 225 years later, anymore than it was written exactly for 1562, 225 years prior.  So even though the principals may be timeless, the law is not.
Click to expand...


The law is timeless. That is why we repeal laws instead of choosing to ignore them, because somebody can always bring up an old law to use. 

You are spot on about the founders and framers being aware of exactly what it was and wasn't that they were forming. *They gave us the amendment process - a very difficult process.* 

You are correct in your observations of libertarian/right disconnects in their ideological arguments versus their politics or reality.

pretty good post


----------



## Oddball

Toro said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Repeal 17th Amendment?
> 
> How many times have you had your U.S. Senator approach you and discuss impending legislation with you?  Even though you voted for them, they probably did not contact you once. But how many times do you suppose they contacted Enron about impending legislation. Enron and other corporations financed their campaigns, to the tune of millions of dollars, to get you to vote these senators into office. You can safely bet that your U.S. Senators discuss impending legislation with these corporations on a routine basis.
> 
> How often do U.S. Senators discuss federal affairs with your state legislator? I am still looking for a state legislator who has been contacted by their U.S. Senator regarding federal affairs.
> 
> Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Senators discussed federal affairs with their state legislators on a regular basis. At THAT time U.S. Senators did not have to raise millions of dollars to run for office. They were not beholden to the large corporations.
> 
> There is no way our U.S. Senators are going to personally discuss federal affairs with, and handle the input from, 900,000 people. The only choice we have before us is to have them discuss our federal affairs with the State Legislatures as opposed to the large corporations. As originally included in the U.S. Constitution, the people of the states will continue to enjoy the right to vote for their U.S. Representatives.
> 
> I am including the final version of my presentation which I gave today before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *One reason why we have the 17th amendment is because Senator offices were bought and sold like property.  *There were several investigations into corruption on Senate seats in the 19th century.  All appointing Senators would do is flow the corruption from the national level to the state level.
> 
> FTR, the largest contributor to Jeb Bush's gubernatorial campaigns was Enron.  Those contributions to Bush and the state Republican party would have skyrocketed exponentially had the state appointed Senators.
Click to expand...

Now they're basically appointments for life...Some progress.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Dante said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, I do not agree with your arguments about Senate, but agree with your arguments about Clay.
> 
> Was the Senate supposed to be a curb on the House? And is not always getting their way make the Senate irrelevant to original purpose? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minds of good will and balance can agree to disagree.  Nothing is perfect.  Other than Odd.  Ask him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMFG! You have compromised yourself in their eyes. You've treated an opposing view as worthy of respect. Shame!!!
Click to expand...


  What "they" think about respect does not bear consideration.  They are weirdos.


----------



## Navy1960

The Federalist No. 62

The Senate

Independent Journal
 Wednesday, February 27, 1788
 [James Madison]

II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is *probably the most congenial with the public opinion*. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.
*
III. The equality of representation in the Senate is another point, which, being evidently the result of compromise between the opposite pretensions of the large and the small States, does not call for much discussion.* If indeed it be right, that among a people thoroughly incorporated into one nation, every district ought to have a proportional share in the government, and that among independent and sovereign States, bound together by a simple league, the parties, however unequal in size, ought to have an equal share in the common councils
The Federalist #62

Makes you wonder if direct election of Senators is  congenial with public opinion as  the 17th Amendment calls for,  I suspect it is, because many Americans would not wish to part with the right to select their own Senators and  impart that back upon a Legislature  or Agent to elect a Senator for them.  The other issue I have seen here is a question by some "why have a Senate" I think  James Madison rightly pointed out the reasons for having a Senate in this nation.


----------



## Toro

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh Hey !!!
> 
> That is really working for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Works better than it did under the old system
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only if your idea of "working better" is to allow most power to flow to Washington D.C.
> 
> As usual, we find that the discussion boils down to who you want running your life.
> 
> Most liberals seem to think the morons we complain about are worthy of even more power.  Hell, let them run health care.
> 
> Whereas most conservatives (not including GWB) feel that states powers and a corrleated model at an even smaller level is better.  And all of that is only with minimal input.  My vote for my state senator is roughly 100 times more powerful than my vote form fedeal senator.
> 
> And my state legislator knows me by name.  My federal senators only know their lobbyists by name....
> 
> But that system is working better !!!
Click to expand...


Allowing a politician to make the decision for me on how I should be governed is much more Big Government than allowing me to vote directly.

Your argument is exactly the same argument the Left uses for socialized medicine.  "If the people are unhappy with socialized medicine, they'll vote the party out and vote for the party that gives them better medical care."  In both socialized medicine and appointing senators, it is government making the decisions for you and taking power away from the individual.


----------



## Toro

Oddball said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why Repeal 17th Amendment?
> 
> How many times have you had your U.S. Senator approach you and discuss impending legislation with you?  Even though you voted for them, they probably did not contact you once. But how many times do you suppose they contacted Enron about impending legislation. Enron and other corporations financed their campaigns, to the tune of millions of dollars, to get you to vote these senators into office. You can safely bet that your U.S. Senators discuss impending legislation with these corporations on a routine basis.
> 
> How often do U.S. Senators discuss federal affairs with your state legislator? I am still looking for a state legislator who has been contacted by their U.S. Senator regarding federal affairs.
> 
> Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Senators discussed federal affairs with their state legislators on a regular basis. At THAT time U.S. Senators did not have to raise millions of dollars to run for office. They were not beholden to the large corporations.
> 
> There is no way our U.S. Senators are going to personally discuss federal affairs with, and handle the input from, 900,000 people. The only choice we have before us is to have them discuss our federal affairs with the State Legislatures as opposed to the large corporations. As originally included in the U.S. Constitution, the people of the states will continue to enjoy the right to vote for their U.S. Representatives.
> 
> I am including the final version of my presentation which I gave today before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *One reason why we have the 17th amendment is because Senator offices were bought and sold like property.  *There were several investigations into corruption on Senate seats in the 19th century.  All appointing Senators would do is flow the corruption from the national level to the state level.
> 
> FTR, the largest contributor to Jeb Bush's gubernatorial campaigns was Enron.  Those contributions to Bush and the state Republican party would have skyrocketed exponentially had the state appointed Senators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now they're basically appointments for life...Some progress.
Click to expand...


I assume you have now read my later post about Senators serving on average 11-13 years.


----------



## Oddball

Navy1960 said:


> Makes you wonder if direct election of Senators is  congenial with public opinion as  the 17th Amendment calls for,  I suspect it is, because many Americans would not wish to part with the right to select their own Senators and  impart that back upon a Legislature  or Agent to elect a Senator for them.  The other issue I have seen here is a question by some "why have a Senate" I think  James Madison rightly pointed out the reasons for having a Senate in this nation.


But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.

What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.


----------



## Toro

Oddball said:


> You get your choice for Senators at the state level, when you vote for your state legislatures and Governor....Therefore, when you have the natural turnover which occurs within the state houses, then your Senators also tend to turn over, rather than them being a reflection of how your state operated several decades ago....Then you don't have a basically imperial Senate, populated with fossils like Dole, McCain, Kennedy, Byrd, Lugar, ad nauseum, hanging around like herpes.



You are taking away my vote and putting your faith in the government on how I should be governed.  You are taking away my individual choice.  That is Big Gubmint.  



> And, as I pointed out earlier, federal spending and bureaucracy has swelled in the last century, from the scant couple of percent it was for the first 150 years of America's existence, to a level approaching 1/4 of all GDP...If you want to claim that this is all coincidental, I have a bridge I want to sell you.



Why do you assume it wouldn't be more spending?  Are you arguing that state politicians are less venal and corrupt?  If so, whatever you're smoking, pass me some.  The idea that an unelected Senate would adhere closer to the principles of the Founding Fathers is merely romantic claptrap.


----------



## Oddball

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> *One reason why we have the 17th amendment is because Senator offices were bought and sold like property.  *There were several investigations into corruption on Senate seats in the 19th century.  All appointing Senators would do is flow the corruption from the national level to the state level.
> 
> FTR, the largest contributor to Jeb Bush's gubernatorial campaigns was Enron.  Those contributions to Bush and the state Republican party would have skyrocketed exponentially had the state appointed Senators.
> 
> 
> 
> Now they're basically appointments for life...Some progress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I assume you have now read my later post about Senators serving on average 11-13 years.
Click to expand...

With many of them who could easily be re-elected choosing to leave voluntarily....Some to take other federal positions.

What's the percentage that gets voted out?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> I've never understood this argument from people who claim to be libertarians or conservatives. According to the political right, government is a total fuck-up. It can't do anything right. We should leave it to the market. People should have as much say over their daily lives and choices and the government should have less because people know more about their wants and needs than the government. But according to those who say we should appoint Senators, giving more power to government officials and taking away the individual's choice is a good thing. Appointing Senators means government officials dictate to you how you are going to be governed and takes away the choice of the individual. IOW, Big Gubmint knows best on how everyone should be governed than the individual. It's a big contradiction.



It is. 

Much of the contradiction is predicated on the conservative/libertarian understanding of big government, which is rightist code for Federal government, where state and local governments can do no wrong. A study of the case law over the last 60 years, however, indicates state and local governments are more likely to violate their citizens civil liberties, not the Federal government. From _Brown v. Board of Education_ in 1954 to _Lawrence v. Texas_ in 2003, we see case after case of citizens bringing suit against their states and local governments in Federal court, seeking relief from civil rights violations. 



> Another argument is that the Founding Fathers knew what was best when they appointed Senators because it would lead to mob rule. If they knew best, they also knew best that the document they had written wasn't infallible. They understood that times change. That's why they put in a mechanism to amend the Constitution. They knew best that even if the principals they espoused were timeless, the law and how people were governed was not. The law and how individuals are governed changes throughout time. The constitution was written 225 years ago. It was not written exactly for 2012, 225 years later, anymore than it was written exactly for 1562, 225 years prior. So even though the principals may be timeless, the law is not.



The above is in essence paraphrasing Justice Kennedy in _Lawrence_:

_Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom._


----------



## Toro

Oddball said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now they're basically appointments for life...Some progress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you have now read my later post about Senators serving on average 11-13 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> With many of them who could easily be re-elected choosing to leave voluntarily....Some to take other federal positions.
> 
> What's the percentage that gets voted out?
Click to expand...


I don't know.  In 2010, 15 Senators were either defeated or retired, or nearly half that were up for election.  What I do know is that they don't serve a lifetime.


----------



## Navy1960

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes you wonder if direct election of Senators is  congenial with public opinion as  the 17th Amendment calls for,  I suspect it is, because many Americans would not wish to part with the right to select their own Senators and  impart that back upon a Legislature  or Agent to elect a Senator for them.  The other issue I have seen here is a question by some "why have a Senate" I think  James Madison rightly pointed out the reasons for having a Senate in this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.
> 
> What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.
Click to expand...


Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate  for Senate  along with a majority of  those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner  votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the  Senator of that State was not elected  by the people  but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as  say  Sec. of State. , the current  holder of the White House  picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State.   One other thing of note here is this,  while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core  those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen. 

Think of it this way,  if the Senate was done away with all together, then  if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of  a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would  in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and  I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.


----------



## Oddball

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you have now read my later post about Senators serving on average 11-13 years.
> 
> 
> 
> With many of them who could easily be re-elected choosing to leave voluntarily....Some to take other federal positions.
> 
> What's the percentage that gets voted out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know.  In 2010, 15 Senators were either defeated or retired, or nearly half that were up for election.  What I do know is that they don't serve a lifetime.
Click to expand...

Didn't say that....What I said is that they basically had a lifetime job, if they wanted to stay there that long....The turnover rate with appointees would most likely be much higher.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes you wonder if direct election of Senators is  congenial with public opinion as  the 17th Amendment calls for,  I suspect it is, because many Americans would not wish to part with the right to select their own Senators and  impart that back upon a Legislature  or Agent to elect a Senator for them.  The other issue I have seen here is a question by some "why have a Senate" I think  James Madison rightly pointed out the reasons for having a Senate in this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.
> 
> What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.
Click to expand...


Why do you want to limit the individual's freedom to select his own senators?


----------



## Oddball

Navy1960 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Makes you wonder if direct election of Senators is  congenial with public opinion as  the 17th Amendment calls for,  I suspect it is, because many Americans would not wish to part with the right to select their own Senators and  impart that back upon a Legislature  or Agent to elect a Senator for them.  The other issue I have seen here is a question by some "why have a Senate" I think  James Madison rightly pointed out the reasons for having a Senate in this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.
> 
> What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate  for Senate  along with a majority of  those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner  votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the  Senator of that State was not elected  by the people  but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as  say  Sec. of State. , the current  holder of the White House  picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State.   One other thing of note here is this,  while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core  those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.
> 
> Think of it this way,  if the Senate was done away with all together, then  if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of  a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would  in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and  I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.
Click to expand...

And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.


----------



## Dante

*The "Why you should take care with dimwits like The Oddball Dude" Post​*


Oddball said:


> *1)* You get your choice for Senators at the state level, when you vote for your state legislatures and Governor....Therefore, when you have the natural turnover which occurs withing the state houses, then your Senators also tend to turn over, rather than them being a reflection of how your state operated several decades ago....Then you don't have a basically imperial Senate, populated with fossils like Dole, McCain, Kennedy, Byrd, Lugar, ad nauseum, hanging around like herpes.
> 
> *2)* Claiming libertarians are saying that the Constitution as originally set forth was perfect is a red herring....Nobody is saying that....That said, the 17th Amendment, coupled with the 16th Amendment and the creation of the Fed -all coincidentally(?) in the same year no less- all removed three important constraints on centralizing power in a faraway capital, as the framers clearly sought to avoid, in one fell swoop.
> 
> *3)* And, as I pointed out earlier, federal spending and bureaucracy has swelled in the last century, from the scant couple of percent it was for the first 150 years of America's existence, to a level approaching 1/4 of all GDP...If you want to claim that this is all coincidental, I have a bridge I want to sell you.



*Post: *Libertarian and Randian Nitwitty pseudo-intellectual arguments are very similar to academic theories, papers, and models (_weather models?_), that see the world without real human interaction, and propose solutions with very little chance of succeeding in the real world.

Take the overly ridiculous, and simplistic proposition that turnovers in state government would regulate federal office terms. A natural turnover in an overly Democratic or Republican states only means a different Democrat or Republican replaces the one before them.   But that's the real world and how it works, not some pie-in-the-sky dream world of some Randian Nitwit or Libertarian Doofus. 

*1)* So The Oddball Dude fails in his first premise. 

----------

*2)* On September 13, 1788, Congress fixed the city of New York as the seat of the new government. Congress not the framers. The statement "_removed three important constraints on centralizing power in a faraway capital as the framers clearly sought to avoid..._" contains a historical inaccuracy worthy of a Junior high School student who missed American History classes. New York, and Philadelphia were NOT far away places (New York - capital was moved to Philadelphia in 1790 and to Washington, D.C., in 1800).  

*3)* Some idiocy The Oddball Dude usually includes in posts because he thinks it makes him look smaht. There is a reason they call it dope. 


*dD*

_class over_


----------



## Oddball

Nobody's talking to you, dicknose.

Now, if you don't mind, some adults are having a conversation.....Go chase manifold around.


----------



## Navy1960

I do have a suggestion though, if  the reason for  getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators  tend to park their backsides in the Senate  till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators.  I can suggest two methods,  the first one is an easy one,  stop voting for the  incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one).  The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as  the President now has.


----------



## Peach

Navy1960 said:


> I do have a suggestion though, if  the reason for  getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators  tend to park their backsides in the Senate  till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators.  I can suggest two methods,  the first one is an easy one,  stop voting for the  incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one).  The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as  the President now has.



Rational solutions, yes. But let voters decide, term limits for Congress would add to the cost of the functioning.


----------



## Oddball

Navy1960 said:


> I do have a suggestion though, if  the reason for  getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators  tend to park their backsides in the Senate  till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators.  I can suggest two methods,  the first one is an easy one,  stop voting for the  incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one).  The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as  the President now has.


There aren't enough numbers in congress for the members to vote themselves out of office....USSC already ruled that state term limits laws don't apply to federal offices.


----------



## Peach

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have a suggestion though, if  the reason for  getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators  tend to park their backsides in the Senate  till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators.  I can suggest two methods,  the first one is an easy one,  stop voting for the  incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one).  The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as  the President now has.
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't enough numbers in congress for the members to vote themselves out of office....USSC already ruled that state term limits laws don't apply to federal offices.
Click to expand...


And any member of Congress can be VOTED out.


----------



## Navy1960

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.
> 
> What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate  for Senate  along with a majority of  those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner  votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the  Senator of that State was not elected  by the people  but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as  say  Sec. of State. , the current  holder of the White House  picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State.   One other thing of note here is this,  while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core  those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.
> 
> Think of it this way,  if the Senate was done away with all together, then  if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of  a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would  in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and  I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.
Click to expand...


Ahh, but Oddball, take away the  Senate and that is exactly  what will happen. While I understand that population is more concentrated  in say for example   Madison, etc. vs. Land owners  in the rest of the state, imagine a nation where there was no Senate dominated by the large population states.  States like WI. would soon find themselves adopting California Air standards because they would have only proportional representation to pass laws for them.  Frankly, the only thing wrong with the Senate in the last 25 years has been an American public that simply allows Senators to return to office year after year, and then wonders why nothing is getting done.  Perhaps the best place to start is in the voting booth ?


----------



## Navy1960

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have a suggestion though, if  the reason for  getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators  tend to park their backsides in the Senate  till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators.  I can suggest two methods,  the first one is an easy one,  stop voting for the  incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one).  *The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as  the President now has*.
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't enough numbers in congress for the members to vote themselves out of office....USSC already ruled that state term limits laws don't apply to federal offices.
Click to expand...


I didn't say state term limits, I said a Constitutional Amendment. 

22nd Amendment 

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.


----------



## Peach

Navy1960 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate  for Senate  along with a majority of  those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner  votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the  Senator of that State was not elected  by the people  but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as  say  Sec. of State. , the current  holder of the White House  picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State.   One other thing of note here is this,  while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core  those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.
> 
> Think of it this way,  if the Senate was done away with all together, then  if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of  a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would  in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and  I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, but Oddball, take away the  Senate and that is exactly  what will happen. While I understand that population is more concentrated  in say for example   Madison, etc. vs. Land owners  in the rest of the state, imagine a nation where there was no Senate dominated by the large population states.  States like WI. would soon find themselves adopting California Air standards because they would have only proportional representation to pass laws for them.  Frankly, the only thing wrong with the Senate in the last 25 years has been an American public that simply allows Senators to return to office year after year, and then wonders why nothing is getting done.  Perhaps the best place to start is in the voting booth ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Oddball

Navy1960 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate  for Senate  along with a majority of  those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner  votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the  Senator of that State was not elected  by the people  but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as  say  Sec. of State. , the current  holder of the White House  picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State.   One other thing of note here is this,  while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core  those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.
> 
> Think of it this way,  if the Senate was done away with all together, then  if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of  a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would  in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and  I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ahh, but Oddball, take away the  Senate and that is exactly  what will happen. While I understand that population is more concentrated  in say for example   Madison, etc. vs. Land owners  in the rest of the state, imagine a nation where there was no Senate dominated by the large population states.  States like WI. would soon find themselves adopting California Air standards because they would have only proportional representation to pass laws for them.  Frankly, the only thing wrong with the Senate in the last 25 years has been an American public that simply allows Senators to return to office year after year, and then wonders why nothing is getting done.  Perhaps the best place to start is in the voting booth ?
Click to expand...

Nonsense.....Nobody is talking about taking away the Senate.

And I completely fail to understand what the federal Senate has to do with a state like California passing its own environmental policies.


----------



## Oddball

Navy1960 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do have a suggestion though, if  the reason for  getting rid of the 17th Amendment is based on the fact that Senators  tend to park their backsides in the Senate  till they gather dust, then perhaps the best way to go about this is not to seek to remove the right of people to elect their own Senators.  I can suggest two methods,  the first one is an easy one,  stop voting for the  incumbent time after time after time, only because they happen to be in the same party you are in ( take your pick on that one).  *The other suggestion is, rather than spin your wheels on an Amendment to the Constitution thats doomed to failure, perhaps one that seeks to add term limits to US Senators much the same as  the President now has*.
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't enough numbers in congress for the members to vote themselves out of office....USSC already ruled that state term limits laws don't apply to federal offices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say state term limits, I said a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> 22nd Amendment
> 
> Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Click to expand...

You'd have to pass another Amendment, as there's no process for amending a currently standing Amendment.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you do, albeit indirectly, get to choose who your Senators are, by electing state representatives who will support your choice for who that will be.
> 
> What's happening at the core boils down to a variation on the electoral college within the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate  for Senate  along with a majority of  those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner  votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the  Senator of that State was not elected  by the people  but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as  say  Sec. of State. , the current  holder of the White House  picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State.   One other thing of note here is this,  while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core  those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.
> 
> Think of it this way,  if the Senate was done away with all together, then  if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of  a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would  in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and  I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.
Click to expand...


Land does not vote....people do

Who controls the most land in a state is irrelevant

The voter in Madison-Milwaukee has the same vote as the farmer with 500 acres


----------



## Dante

Oddball said:


> Nobody's talking to you, dicknose.
> 
> Now, if you don't mind, some adults are having a conversation.....Go chase manifold around.



loser


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not really think about this for a moment, let's say that your state rep. happens to be someone you did not vote for and happens to support a candidate  for Senate  along with a majority of  those in the State legislature that would not otherwise garner  votes from the general public in a direct election. In that regard, the  Senator of that State was not elected  by the people  but was elected by an Agent. It's much along the same lines as  say  Sec. of State. , the current  holder of the White House  picks a Sec. of State who is then voted on , however if you did not vote for that President, you have little to do with the current Sec. of State.   One other thing of note here is this,  while it's fun to debate this issue the 17th will never be repealed because at its core  those that seek to repeal it seek to take away the right to vote for a Senator directly and not only that , you would have to to get 2/3rds of the states to agree to it which won't happen.
> 
> Think of it this way,  if the Senate was done away with all together, then  if you happen live in those Red States, you will soon find yourself at the mercy of  a small number of blue states or at the very least one party which happens to dominate the bigger more populated states would  in turn make most of the laws for every other state, and  I suspect those who founded this nation had an idea about this and thus the reason why we have a Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Land does not vote....people do
> 
> Who controls the most land in a state is irrelevant
> 
> The voter in Madison-Milwaukee has the same vote as the farmer with 500 acres
Click to expand...

Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.


----------



## freedombecki

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You get your choice for Senators at the state level, when you vote for your state legislatures and Governor....Therefore, when you have the natural turnover which occurs within the state houses, then your Senators also tend to turn over, rather than them being a reflection of how your state operated several decades ago....Then you don't have a basically imperial Senate, populated with fossils like Dole, McCain, Kennedy, Byrd, Lugar, ad nauseum, hanging around like herpes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are taking away my vote and putting your faith in the government on how I should be governed.  You are taking away my individual choice.  That is Big Gubmint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, as I pointed out earlier, federal spending and bureaucracy has swelled in the last century, from the scant couple of percent it was for the first 150 years of America's existence, to a level approaching 1/4 of all GDP...If you want to claim that this is all coincidental, I have a bridge I want to sell you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you assume it wouldn't be more spending?  Are you arguing that state politicians are less venal and corrupt?  If so, whatever you're smoking, pass me some.  The idea that an unelected Senate would adhere closer to the principles of the Founding Fathers is merely romantic claptrap.
Click to expand...

Toro, you are a voter like few others, but people going into the polls for the first time are often simply voting for a beauty contest with the most physically beautiful person with a modicum of camera composure, their choice.

The founders did not set the Senate up to be a beauty contest ON PURPOSE. Yes, scandals happen, but nothing compared to what the press ignores today. Nothing. 

They used to be the Fifth Column when they practiced reporting facts. Now they report what a political base wishes to hear rather than the facts, and at the end, they vilify a conservative and promote a liberal who uses botox and spends serious time at a hairdresser's rather than a law library.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Navy1960

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, but Oddball, take away the  Senate and that is exactly  what will happen. While I understand that population is more concentrated  in say for example   Madison, etc. vs. Land owners  in the rest of the state, imagine a nation where there was no Senate dominated by the large population states.  States like WI. would soon find themselves adopting California Air standards because they would have only proportional representation to pass laws for them.  Frankly, the only thing wrong with the Senate in the last 25 years has been an American public that simply allows Senators to return to office year after year, and then wonders why nothing is getting done.  Perhaps the best place to start is in the voting booth ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense.....Nobody is talking about taking away the Senate.
> 
> And I completely fail to understand what the federal Senate has to do with a state like California passing its own environmental policies.
Click to expand...


Several people in this thread have advocated for just that, your posting complained about  the  people Madison you  did not like,   I suspect like  most states a large majority of WI. citizens live in or near  large cities and in that your going to have more representation based on that.  The same applies to the US House, so let's say for a moment we don't have a Senate and states like California wish to promote a policy that while good for California  is not so good  for the rest of the nation upon the rest of the nation anyway, all they need do is align with a few of the larger  population House members and  smaller states like WI. would soon find themselves with laws they do not like nor want.  In short it was an example,  As for the repeal of the 17th let's say for a moment you do go back to state legislatures picking Senators, then we go back to the same thing I stated earlier in that,  state legislatures are not bound by the voters to select anyone or vote for anyone, more so they can choose whomever they wish for the position, and you will again find yourself with laws you don't like. In short  the best thing to do is vote for the guy you want, and vote out the guy you don't.


----------



## Oddball

Toro said:


> Why do you assume it wouldn't be more spending?  Are you arguing that state politicians are less venal and corrupt?  If so, whatever you're smoking, pass me some.  The idea that an unelected Senate would adhere closer to the principles of the Founding Fathers is merely romantic claptrap.


Because, with apportionment anyways, the onus for collecting federal taxes was passed onto state agencies....This is why there was no income tax either.

If the Senators passed along a huge tax increase onto the states for collection, there'd be hell to pay from the Senator(s), to the state lawmakers, to the Governor for seating such a person.


----------



## Navy1960

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> There aren't enough numbers in congress for the members to vote themselves out of office....USSC already ruled that state term limits laws don't apply to federal offices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say state term limits, I said a Constitutional Amendment.
> 
> 22nd Amendment
> 
> Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to pass another Amendment, as there's no process for amending a currently standing Amendment.
Click to expand...


I didn't say otherwise, and  in fact  in order to repeal the 17th you would have to do the same thing, that is why in a previous posting I mentioned  why bother with this because it will never fly and you would have a better chance of  Amending the constitution with term limits for Senators like the 22nd  does for the President.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you live in a state that has more "red" districts than "blue", the city dwellers don't overrun those in the country via the strength of sheer urban population....I know, the State of Wisconsin has pretty much been run by the liberoidal douchebags in the Madison-Milwaukee axis for decades now, even though most of the land is controlled by people who live far more conservatively.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Land does not vote....people do
> 
> Who controls the most land in a state is irrelevant
> 
> The voter in Madison-Milwaukee has the same vote as the farmer with 500 acres
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.
Click to expand...


One man....one vote

One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!


----------



## Oddball

Navy1960 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahh, but Oddball, take away the  Senate and that is exactly  what will happen. While I understand that population is more concentrated  in say for example   Madison, etc. vs. Land owners  in the rest of the state, imagine a nation where there was no Senate dominated by the large population states.  States like WI. would soon find themselves adopting California Air standards because they would have only proportional representation to pass laws for them.  Frankly, the only thing wrong with the Senate in the last 25 years has been an American public that simply allows Senators to return to office year after year, and then wonders why nothing is getting done.  Perhaps the best place to start is in the voting booth ?
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.....Nobody is talking about taking away the Senate.
> 
> And I completely fail to understand what the federal Senate has to do with a state like California passing its own environmental policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Several people in this thread have advocated for just that, your posting complained about  the  people Madison you  did not like,   I suspect like  most states a large majority of WI. citizens live in or near  large cities and in that your going to have more representation based on that.  The same applies to the US House, so let's say for a moment we don't have a Senate and states like California wish to promote a policy that while good for California  is not so good  for the rest of the nation upon the rest of the nation anyway, all they need do is align with a few of the larger  population House members and  smaller states like WI. would soon find themselves with laws they do not like nor want.  In short it was an example,  As for the repeal of the 17th let's say for a moment you do go back to state legislatures picking Senators, then we go back to the same thing I stated earlier in that,  state legislatures are not bound by the voters to select anyone or vote for anyone, more so they can choose whomever they wish for the position, and you will again find yourself with laws you don't like. In short  the best thing to do is vote for the guy you want, and vote out the guy you don't.
Click to expand...

They're bound in the same way that they are when they push for the legislation that they claim to want while they're campaigning...Also by the fact that they have to go back to their districts and face their friends and neighbors and account for why, in the worst case scenario, that they sold out their constituents.

Y'know....That accountability thingy we keep hearing about, yet get nearly none of.


----------



## Navy1960

Here is anoher thing to consider  here,  I can think that the loudest scream for Term Limits for US Senators would come from Lobbyists,  imagine K Street having to form new relationships every so often, far be it from the American puplic to make life harder on K Street.


----------



## Peach

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Land does not vote....people do
> 
> Who controls the most land in a state is irrelevant
> 
> The voter in Madison-Milwaukee has the same vote as the farmer with 500 acres
> 
> 
> 
> Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One man....one vote
> 
> One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!
Click to expand...


YES! And we need no Amendments that limit our right to vote for the candidate we choose.


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Land does not vote....people do
> 
> Who controls the most land in a state is irrelevant
> 
> The voter in Madison-Milwaukee has the same vote as the farmer with 500 acres
> 
> 
> 
> Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One man....one vote
> 
> One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!
Click to expand...

One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.

But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.


----------



## Navy1960

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.....Nobody is talking about taking away the Senate.
> 
> And I completely fail to understand what the federal Senate has to do with a state like California passing its own environmental policies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Several people in this thread have advocated for just that, your posting complained about  the  people Madison you  did not like,   I suspect like  most states a large majority of WI. citizens live in or near  large cities and in that your going to have more representation based on that.  The same applies to the US House, so let's say for a moment we don't have a Senate and states like California wish to promote a policy that while good for California  is not so good  for the rest of the nation upon the rest of the nation anyway, all they need do is align with a few of the larger  population House members and  smaller states like WI. would soon find themselves with laws they do not like nor want.  In short it was an example,  As for the repeal of the 17th let's say for a moment you do go back to state legislatures picking Senators, then we go back to the same thing I stated earlier in that,  state legislatures are not bound by the voters to select anyone or vote for anyone, more so they can choose whomever they wish for the position, and you will again find yourself with laws you don't like. In short  the best thing to do is vote for the guy you want, and vote out the guy you don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're bound in the same way that they are when they push for the legislation that they claim to want while they're campaigning...Also by the fact that they have to go back to their districts and face their friends and neighbors and account for why, in the worst case scenario, that they sold out their constituents.
> 
> Y'know....That accountability thingy we keep hearing about, yet get nearly none of.
Click to expand...


While I agree completely on the accountability thing and wish it were true,  how many times have we seen Legislators vote for bills both for and against that have wide public support and and wide public  negatives, then when election time comes around that accountability thing seems to evaporate?  Personally, I prefer making the choice myself for those who will represent me in Washington D.C. and not some Agent or State Rep.  who not only have the power for that vote, but the power to select whomever they wished for the post.


----------



## Oddball

Navy1960 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Several people in this thread have advocated for just that, your posting complained about  the  people Madison you  did not like,   I suspect like  most states a large majority of WI. citizens live in or near  large cities and in that your going to have more representation based on that.  The same applies to the US House, so let's say for a moment we don't have a Senate and states like California wish to promote a policy that while good for California  is not so good  for the rest of the nation upon the rest of the nation anyway, all they need do is align with a few of the larger  population House members and  smaller states like WI. would soon find themselves with laws they do not like nor want.  In short it was an example,  As for the repeal of the 17th let's say for a moment you do go back to state legislatures picking Senators, then we go back to the same thing I stated earlier in that,  state legislatures are not bound by the voters to select anyone or vote for anyone, more so they can choose whomever they wish for the position, and you will again find yourself with laws you don't like. In short  the best thing to do is vote for the guy you want, and vote out the guy you don't.
> 
> 
> 
> They're bound in the same way that they are when they push for the legislation that they claim to want while they're campaigning...Also by the fact that they have to go back to their districts and face their friends and neighbors and account for why, in the worst case scenario, that they sold out their constituents.
> 
> Y'know....That accountability thingy we keep hearing about, yet get nearly none of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I agree completely on the accountability thing and wish it were true,  how many times have we seen Legislators vote for bills both for and against that have wide public support and and wide public  negatives, then when election time comes around that accountability thing seems to evaporate?  Personally, I prefer making the choice myself for those who will represent me in Washington D.C. and not some Agent or State Rep.  who not only have the power for that vote, but the power to select whomever they wished for the post.
Click to expand...

How different do you think that would be if the legislator in question had to go back to his district and face his friends and neighbors, for supporting the appointment of a Senator who acted in such a brazenly callous manner?

With Senators elected in statewide races, you get none of that....Senators just campaign in the population centers and that's it.


----------



## Navy1960

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're bound in the same way that they are when they push for the legislation that they claim to want while they're campaigning...Also by the fact that they have to go back to their districts and face their friends and neighbors and account for why, in the worst case scenario, that they sold out their constituents.
> 
> Y'know....That accountability thingy we keep hearing about, yet get nearly none of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree completely on the accountability thing and wish it were true,  how many times have we seen Legislators vote for bills both for and against that have wide public support and and wide public  negatives, then when election time comes around that accountability thing seems to evaporate?  Personally, I prefer making the choice myself for those who will represent me in Washington D.C. and not some Agent or State Rep.  who not only have the power for that vote, but the power to select whomever they wished for the post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How different do you think that would be if the legislator in question had to go back to his district and face his friends and neighbors, for supporting the appointment of a Senator who acted in such a brazenly callous manner?
> 
> With Senators elected in statewide races, you get none of that....Senators just campaign in the population centers and that's it.
Click to expand...


I can't say much for other states  but here in Arizona based on our recent history in the last 10 years not much.    I submit to you that the reason most Senators sit in Washington to long  or seem to is not because  of unfairness so much as it is, we the voters tend to just  look for the team jersey when voting and that sort of thing lends itself to candidates be it the Senate or House  staying longer than they need too. As for  beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State.  I do however agree with Madison's view of the situation and that is what the current "popular mood" is at the time.  I would frankly submit to you that Americans popular mood at this point in time is  along the lines of the  17th Amendment  Justice Scalia's opinions  not withstanding.


----------



## Peach

Navy1960 said:


> Here is anoher thing to consider  here,  I can think that the loudest scream for Term Limits for US Senators would come from Lobbyists,  imagine K Street having to form new relationships every so often, far be it from the American puplic to make life harder on K Street.



True, but voters would need to pay more attention. Too many Americans don't even bother TO vote.


----------



## Oddball

Navy1960 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree completely on the accountability thing and wish it were true,  how many times have we seen Legislators vote for bills both for and against that have wide public support and and wide public  negatives, then when election time comes around that accountability thing seems to evaporate?  Personally, I prefer making the choice myself for those who will represent me in Washington D.C. and not some Agent or State Rep.  who not only have the power for that vote, but the power to select whomever they wished for the post.
> 
> 
> 
> How different do you think that would be if the legislator in question had to go back to his district and face his friends and neighbors, for supporting the appointment of a Senator who acted in such a brazenly callous manner?
> 
> With Senators elected in statewide races, you get none of that....Senators just campaign in the population centers and that's it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't say much for other states  but here in Arizona based on our recent history in the last 10 years not much.    I submit to you that the reason most Senators sit in Washington to long  or seem to is not because  of unfairness so much as it is, we the voters tend to just  look for the team jersey when voting and that sort of thing lends itself to candidates be it the Senate or House  staying longer than they need too. As for  beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State.  I do however agree with Madison's view of the situation and that is what the current "popular mood" is at the time.  I would frankly submit to you that Americans popular mood at this point in time is  along the lines of the  17th Amendment  Justice Scalia's opinions  not withstanding.
Click to expand...

Why would a Senator be more beholden to any given voter in Yuma of Winslow, when he can just go campaign in Phoenix/Tucson, get re-re-re-elected and just tell the outstaters to shove it if they don't like it?


----------



## Peach

As for beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State.
Agreed, let voters decide, OTHER not elected officials.


----------



## Navy1960

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> How different do you think that would be if the legislator in question had to go back to his district and face his friends and neighbors, for supporting the appointment of a Senator who acted in such a brazenly callous manner?
> 
> With Senators elected in statewide races, you get none of that....Senators just campaign in the population centers and that's it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say much for other states  but here in Arizona based on our recent history in the last 10 years not much.    I submit to you that the reason most Senators sit in Washington to long  or seem to is not because  of unfairness so much as it is, we the voters tend to just  look for the team jersey when voting and that sort of thing lends itself to candidates be it the Senate or House  staying longer than they need too. As for  beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State.  I do however agree with Madison's view of the situation and that is what the current "popular mood" is at the time.  I would frankly submit to you that Americans popular mood at this point in time is  along the lines of the  17th Amendment  Justice Scalia's opinions  not withstanding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would a Senator be more beholden to any given voter in Yuma of Winslow, when he can just go campaign in Phoenix/Tucson, get re-re-re-elected and just tell the outstaters to shove it if they don't like it?
Click to expand...


The same way they are for the voters in Phoenix and Tucson, they are not more beholding to any voter in one district over another, however they are  in fact  elected  by voters regardless of location. While it's true a Senator does need to have a majority of votes  to win, not all the votes he will get will come from large population centers.  Let me give you an example, for the most part  Phoenix  has a large large segment of latino voters who mainly vote Democrat, so a  John Kyl for instance, or  John McCain in order to win the election would need a combination of  statewide votes from all the areas outside Phoenix  that mainly vote  Repulican in order to win, after all in most races there is more than one candidate running for the office and  that candidate is not always a lock for say Phoenix or Tucson.


----------



## Oddball

Peach said:


> As for beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State.
> Agreed, let voters decide, OTHER not elected officials.


Yeah, right...As though Herb Kohl gives two shits about the people in Rhinelander and Hurley, when he can just go suck up to the freaks in Milwaukee/Madison and skate back in.


----------



## Oddball

Navy1960 said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say much for other states  but here in Arizona based on our recent history in the last 10 years not much.    I submit to you that the reason most Senators sit in Washington to long  or seem to is not because  of unfairness so much as it is, we the voters tend to just  look for the team jersey when voting and that sort of thing lends itself to candidates be it the Senate or House  staying longer than they need too. As for  beholding to voter, I would submit to you that a Senator that is elected by the voter owes more to the voter than say one wh is free to do as he or she pleases that was put there by a legislature and owes nothing to the citizens of the State.  I do however agree with Madison's view of the situation and that is what the current "popular mood" is at the time.  I would frankly submit to you that Americans popular mood at this point in time is  along the lines of the  17th Amendment  Justice Scalia's opinions  not withstanding.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a Senator be more beholden to any given voter in Yuma of Winslow, when he can just go campaign in Phoenix/Tucson, get re-re-re-elected and just tell the outstaters to shove it if they don't like it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same way they are for the voters in Phoenix and Tucson, they are not more beholding to any voter in one district over another, however they are  in fact  elected  by voters regardless of location. While it's true a Senator does need to have a majority of votes  to win, not all the votes he will get will come from large population centers.  Let me give you an example, for the most part  Phoenix  has a large large segment of latino voters who mainly vote Democrat, so a  John Kyl for instance, or  John McCain in order to win the election would need a combination of  statewide votes from all the areas outside Phoenix  that mainly vote  Repulican in order to win, after all in most races there is more than one candidate running for the office and  that candidate is not always a lock for say Phoenix or Tucson.
Click to expand...

Though not _*all *_the votes will come from the large population centers, the vast bulk of them do.

Like I said, a popular vote for the HoR and an electoral college model on a statewide basis for the Senate.


----------



## Peach

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would a Senator be more beholden to any given voter in Yuma of Winslow, when he can just go campaign in Phoenix/Tucson, get re-re-re-elected and just tell the outstaters to shove it if they don't like it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same way they are for the voters in Phoenix and Tucson, they are not more beholding to any voter in one district over another, however they are  in fact  elected  by voters regardless of location. While it's true a Senator does need to have a majority of votes  to win, not all the votes he will get will come from large population centers.  Let me give you an example, for the most part  Phoenix  has a large large segment of latino voters who mainly vote Democrat, so a  John Kyl for instance, or  John McCain in order to win the election would need a combination of  statewide votes from all the areas outside Phoenix  that mainly vote  Repulican in order to win, after all in most races there is more than one candidate running for the office and  that candidate is not always a lock for say Phoenix or Tucson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Though not _*all *_the votes will come from the large population centers, the vast bulk of them do.
> 
> Like I said, a popular vote for the HoR and an electoral college model on a statewide basis for the Senate.
Click to expand...


A party majority state legislature might pick uniformly PARTY LINE Senators. In Florida, we have ONE Republican, ONE Democrat, as the voters have chosen. (OK, LeMieux was picked by Jeb! but this November we get a CHOICE again. )


----------



## Oddball

Peach said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same way they are for the voters in Phoenix and Tucson, they are not more beholding to any voter in one district over another, however they are  in fact  elected  by voters regardless of location. While it's true a Senator does need to have a majority of votes  to win, not all the votes he will get will come from large population centers.  Let me give you an example, for the most part  Phoenix  has a large large segment of latino voters who mainly vote Democrat, so a  John Kyl for instance, or  John McCain in order to win the election would need a combination of  statewide votes from all the areas outside Phoenix  that mainly vote  Repulican in order to win, after all in most races there is more than one candidate running for the office and  that candidate is not always a lock for say Phoenix or Tucson.
> 
> 
> 
> Though not _*all *_the votes will come from the large population centers, the vast bulk of them do.
> 
> Like I said, a popular vote for the HoR and an electoral college model on a statewide basis for the Senate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A party majority state legislature might pick uniformly PARTY LINE Senators. In Florida, we have ONE Republican, ONE Democrat, as the voters have chosen. (OK, LeMieux was picked by Jeb! but this November we get a CHOICE again. )
Click to expand...

Though that may happen in one state, it's no guarantee that it will happen in another.

With popularly elected Senators, we have national uniformity of indifference.


----------



## Peach

Oddball said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Though not _*all *_the votes will come from the large population centers, the vast bulk of them do.
> 
> Like I said, a popular vote for the HoR and an electoral college model on a statewide basis for the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A party majority state legislature might pick uniformly PARTY LINE Senators. In Florida, we have ONE Republican, ONE Democrat, as the voters have chosen. (OK, LeMieux was picked by Jeb! but this November we get a CHOICE again. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Though that may happen in one state, it's no guarantee that it will happen in another.
> 
> With popularly elected Senators, we have national uniformity of indifference.
Click to expand...


I don't believe that, and a Senator in the hands of OTHER elected representatives will encourage rampant cronyism. One Blago a century is TOO much.


----------



## Oddball

Peach said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> A party majority state legislature might pick uniformly PARTY LINE Senators. In Florida, we have ONE Republican, ONE Democrat, as the voters have chosen. (OK, LeMieux was picked by Jeb! but this November we get a CHOICE again. )
> 
> 
> 
> Though that may happen in one state, it's no guarantee that it will happen in another.
> 
> With popularly elected Senators, we have national uniformity of indifference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't believe that, and a Senator in the hands of OTHER elected representatives will encourage rampant cronyism. One Blago a century is TOO much.
Click to expand...

Isn't Blago in prison for something or another?...What was that again?...Can't put my finger on it.....


----------



## Peach

Oddball said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Though that may happen in one state, it's no guarantee that it will happen in another.
> 
> With popularly elected Senators, we have national uniformity of indifference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that, and a Senator in the hands of OTHER elected representatives will encourage rampant cronyism. One Blago a century is TOO much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Isn't Blago in prison for something or another?...What was that again?...Can't put my finger on it.....
Click to expand...


Yes, he got a list of convictions, taking corruption to new heights.


----------



## Toro

Dante said:


> The law is timeless. That is why we repeal laws instead of choosing to ignore them, because somebody can always bring up an old law to use.
> 
> You are spot on about the founders and framers being aware of exactly what it was and wasn't that they were forming. *They gave us the amendment process - a very difficult process.*
> 
> You are correct in your observations of libertarian/right disconnects in their ideological arguments versus their politics or reality.
> 
> pretty good post



Thanks.  I appreciate the sentiments.

What I mean about the law are the concepts in law changes as society evolves.  Often this requires changes in the law but it sometimes manifests in rulings in common law or through jury nullification or through laws being overturned by courts.  I would differentiate that and constitutional principles around which the law evolves or is interpreted, which, at least theoretically, do not evolve as much.


----------



## Oddball

Peach said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that, and a Senator in the hands of OTHER elected representatives will encourage rampant cronyism. One Blago a century is TOO much.
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Blago in prison for something or another?...What was that again?...Can't put my finger on it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he got a list of convictions, taking corruption to new heights.
Click to expand...

Well, there you have it...Selling seats would be a criminal act, subject to hard time.

In the meantime, you have lifers like Kennedy and Dodd taking K Street cronyism to new depths.

None of your objections have anything to do with the original reasoning behind why the Senate was set up to be populated the way it was...If anything, the same conditions exist now as those you claim to be objecting to as being problematic with appointed Senators.


----------



## Toro

Oddball said:


> Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.



Why do you assume that?

The biggest recipients of welfare in the country are farmers through farm subsidies, income supports, energy policy and tariffs.  Farmers and landholders are no less venal and greedy than everyone else, and have proven to be more than willing to use the government as an income transfer mechanism for themselves at the expense of everyone else.  Giving them even more power will almost certainly make it more likely that they will increase the amount they line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.


----------



## Peach

Oddball said:


> Well, there you have it...Selling seats would be a criminal act, subject to hard time.
> 
> In the meantime, you have lifers like Kennedy and Dodd taking K Street cronyism to new depths.
> 
> None of your objections have anything to do with the original reasoning behind why the Senate was set up to be populated the way it was...If anything, the same conditions exist now as those you claim to be objecting to as being problematic with appointed Senators.



Easier to sell seats when only a few can make the decision. LET VOTERS DECIDE, campaign against "lifers" if you wish. Lugar has been around a long time also.


----------



## Oddball

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that?
> 
> The biggest recipients of welfare in the country are farmers through farm subsidies, income supports, energy policy and tariffs.  Farmers and landholders are no less venal and greedy than everyone else, and have proven to be more than willing to use the government as an income transfer mechanism for themselves at the expense of everyone else.  Giving them even more power will almost certainly make it more likely that they will increase the amount they line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.
Click to expand...

I assume that because I can read maps.....BTW, most farm subsidies go to big corporate operations (i.e. ConAgra, Cargill, ADM).


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One man....one vote
> 
> One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.
> 
> But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.
Click to expand...


Yes!

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"


----------



## Peach

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One man....one vote
> 
> One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!
> 
> 
> 
> One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.
> 
> But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"
Click to expand...


Part of the reasons for the 17th were discord among state legislatures, vote buying, and accusations of fraud in voting.  An unwise repeal of an Amendment giving power to citizens is not called for.


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One man....one vote
> 
> One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!
> 
> 
> 
> One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.
> 
> But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"
Click to expand...

The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.

But I already know that you don't give a shit anyways.


----------



## Oddball

Peach said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.
> 
> But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Part of the reasons for the 17th were discord among state legislatures, vote buying, and accusations of fraud in voting. * An unwise repeal of an Amendment giving power to citizens is not called for.
Click to expand...

That's the story as told by the progressive winners, who removed one of the checks and balances of the original republic....Yet we still have voter fraud and plenty of vote buying, though not by the same frauds and vote buyers.

The thinking person would in turn tend to not believe the alleged reasons for the 17th Amendment, if much the same conditions existed afterward as before.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.
> 
> But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.
> 
> But I already know that you don't give a shit anyways.
Click to expand...


No, I don't give a shit

I support a system where each citizen has an equal right to vote and the selection of Senators is taken away from corrupt, partisan legislators making backroom deals and given to.......We the People


----------



## Dante

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"
> 
> 
> 
> The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.
> 
> But I already know that you don't give a shit anyways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't give a shit
> 
> I support a system where each citizen has an equal right to vote and the selection of Senators is taken away from corrupt, partisan legislators making backroom deals and given to.......We the People
Click to expand...


tell us what you think?


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> One man....one vote
> 
> One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!



You see that shows just what people don't know.

That is not a founding principle of this country.

It wasn't until Earl Warren, the decidely activist asshole on the SCOTUS decided it needed to be one in 1964.

This is almost scary.


----------



## Listening

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.
> 
> But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.
> 
> But I already know that you don't give a shit anyways.
Click to expand...


He should give some, he's full of it.

Your words seem lost on those whose minds are made up.  The arguments you make, based on original writings are correct.  And the entire premise of the senate was in place until 1913.  Sometimes, you don't know what you had until you lost it.  And that is just what the states did.  Now, it is time to see if we can either get it back or put a parallel system in place for watching over both the house and the superhouse (the senate) on behalf of those states.

Blog was a bummer....but can anyone recall just how many federal legislators have been involved in lately ?


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes!
> 
> I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Part of the reasons for the 17th were discord among state legislatures, vote buying, and accusations of fraud in voting. * An unwise repeal of an Amendment giving power to citizens is not called for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the story as told by the progressive winners, who removed one of the checks and balances of the original republic....Yet we still have voter fraud and plenty of vote buying, though not by the same frauds and vote buyers.
> 
> The thinking person would in turn tend to not believe the alleged reasons for the 17th Amendment, if much the same conditions existed afterward as before.
Click to expand...



Yes! Let's take power away from the voters and put in the hands of more ALEC owned politicians! That'll fix it!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Any who argue that power should rest in property and wealth than in the people is that much less than human. Sad.


----------



## rightwinger

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One man....one vote
> 
> One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see that shows just what people don't know.
> 
> That is not a founding principle of this country.
> 
> It wasn't until Earl Warren, the decidely activist asshole on the SCOTUS decided it needed to be one in 1964.
> 
> This is almost scary.
Click to expand...


You are, of course, correct

It was that activist asshole judge Earl Warren who stepped in and made sure blacks in this country had equal access to the polls.


----------



## Toro

Oddball said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that?
> 
> The biggest recipients of welfare in the country are farmers through farm subsidies, income supports, energy policy and tariffs.  Farmers and landholders are no less venal and greedy than everyone else, and have proven to be more than willing to use the government as an income transfer mechanism for themselves at the expense of everyone else.  Giving them even more power will almost certainly make it more likely that they will increase the amount they line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assume that because I can read maps.....BTW, most farm subsidies go to big corporate operations (i.e. ConAgra, Cargill, ADM).
Click to expand...


And most family farmers happily rake in the government welfare paid for by non-farmers. So the notion that somehow property rights will be more strictly enforced doesn't wash. All it demonstrates is that landholders will happily use government power to line their own pockets at taxpayers' expense.


----------



## Toro

Oddball said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume it wouldn't be more spending?  Are you arguing that state politicians are less venal and corrupt?  If so, whatever you're smoking, pass me some.  The idea that an unelected Senate would adhere closer to the principles of the Founding Fathers is merely romantic claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, with apportionment anyways, the onus for collecting federal taxes was passed onto state agencies....This is why there was no income tax either.
> 
> If the Senators passed along a huge tax increase onto the states for collection, there'd be hell to pay from the Senator(s), to the state lawmakers, to the Governor for seating such a person.
Click to expand...


You make assumptions about behavior that are theoretical and probably do not hold. Most federal government spending goes towards three areas - defense, SS and Medicare. These programs are very popular. The popularity of these programs would instead be transmitted through the state level. Thus your argument could be turned on it's head. There would be hell to pay at the state level for an appointed Senator who chose to slash SS payments. 

It's a romantic nostalgic notion from a time that no longer exists.


----------



## Navy1960

All agreed to a republican form of government grounded in representing the people in the states. For the legislature, two issues were to be decided, (1) how the votes were to be allocated among the states in the Congress, and (2) how the representatives should be elected. The question was settled by the Connecticut Compromise or "Great Compromise". In the House, state power was to be based on population and the people would vote. In the Senate, state power was to be based on state legislature election, *two Senators generally to be elected by different state legislatures to better reflect the long term interests of the people living in each state.*

"The use of the Senate is to consist in proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch."  James Madison

History of the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

." In the minds of many of the Founding Fathers, the Senate would be an American kind of House of Lords. John Dickinson said the Senate should* "consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible."[*

James Madison, the &#8220;Father of the Constitution*,&#8221; openly admitted that the equal suffrage in the Senate was a compromise, a &#8220;lesser evil,&#8221; and not born out of any political theory.*

*Since 1789, the Senate has become much more malaportioned. At the time of the Connecticut Compromise, the largest state, Virginia, had only twelve times the population of the smallest state, Delaware. Today, the largest state, California, has a population that is seventy times greater than the population of the smallest state, Wyoming. In 1790, it would take a theoretical 30% of the population to elect a majority of the Senate, today it would take 17%. Today, there are seven states with only one congressman (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming); never in the past has there been as high a proportion of one-congressmen states.*

Here's the thing,  at the time of the Constitutional Convention many of the Founding Fathers looked at the  British House of Lords as  a system to copy as it were when it came to the Senate and further still the Roman Senate as a model.  The Senate's creation was a result of  Compromise between the states  and not some grand plan by one man. Over the proceeding years  after it's creation, especially when it came to the State Legislatures picking Senators, there was a long history of graft and corruption as well as deadlocks that led to the  17th Amendment.  The idea  of  direct election of Senators was not something that just came up during the debate for  the 17th Amendment , it's  been part of this nations great debate all the way back to James Wilson a signer of the Constitution and member of the  " Committee of Detail"


----------



## Listening

Toro said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume it wouldn't be more spending?  Are you arguing that state politicians are less venal and corrupt?  If so, whatever you're smoking, pass me some.  The idea that an unelected Senate would adhere closer to the principles of the Founding Fathers is merely romantic claptrap.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, with apportionment anyways, the onus for collecting federal taxes was passed onto state agencies....This is why there was no income tax either.
> 
> If the Senators passed along a huge tax increase onto the states for collection, there'd be hell to pay from the Senator(s), to the state lawmakers, to the Governor for seating such a person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You make assumptions about behavior that are theoretical and probably do not hold. Most federal government spending goes towards three areas - defense, SS and Medicare. These programs are very popular. The popularity of these programs would instead be transmitted through the state level. Thus your argument could be turned on it's head. There would be hell to pay at the state level for an appointed Senator who chose to slash SS payments.
> 
> It's a romantic nostalgic notion from a time that no longer exists.
Click to expand...


SS is about to become a nostalgic notin itself.  Had the 17th not come along, we would not have generations of people who potentially will be living on dogfood because they somehow thought the government would take care of them.

Let's bring it back and see what happens.

Hell, it can't be worse than we've got today.


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> One man....one vote
> 
> One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You see that shows just what people don't know.
> 
> That is not a founding principle of this country.
> 
> It wasn't until Earl Warren, the decidely activist asshole on the SCOTUS decided it needed to be one in 1964.
> 
> This is almost scary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are, of course, correct
> 
> It was that activist asshole judge Earl Warren who stepped in and made sure blacks in this country had equal access to the polls.
Click to expand...


What ?

No rebuttal showing that it was a founding principle.

Only a deflection ?

C'mon.....you're better.....well, on second thought, you aren't.


----------



## konradv

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.
Click to expand...


Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ".  They weren't gods.  They were human and made mistakes like anyone else.  I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".


----------



## Listening

konradv said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ".  They weren't gods.  They were human and made mistakes like anyone else.  I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".
Click to expand...


100% agreed.

It should be repealed based on merit and right now Harry Ried and Co. are the single greatest example of why something else should be in it's place.

No, there is no guarantee.  But recent history tells us that the class of 100 baboons we have in there now isn't going to get any better.

There is every reason in the world to do it based on our current situation.


----------



## konradv

Listening said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ".  They weren't gods.  They were human and made mistakes like anyone else.  I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100% agreed.
> 
> It should be repealed based on merit and right now Harry Ried and Co. are the single greatest example of why something else should be in it's place.
> 
> No, there is no guarantee.  But recent history tells us that the class of 100 baboons we have in there now isn't going to get any better.
> 
> There is every reason in the world to do it based on our current situation.
Click to expand...


Would it really sove the problem though?  Why would Senators chosen by legislatures be any less corrupt than those elected?  The problem isn't the method of chossing them, but how we fund campaigns.  Changing back would have zero effect on the House.  SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.


----------



## Oddball

konradv said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ".  They weren't gods.  They were human and made mistakes like anyone else.  I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".
Click to expand...

Strawman....Nobody said the framers were perfect, nor the Constitution a holy writ.

The best evidence that they were right is that lunkheads like you keep trying to distract from the historical evidence for why the legislative structure of the republic was set up the way it was, by creating strawmen, invoking moral equivalence, false dichotomies and other glaring fallacious arguments.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo

MuadDib said:


> Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House....



It isn't subject to gerrymandering.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oddball said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ".  They weren't gods.  They were human and made mistakes like anyone else.  I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman....Nobody said the framers were perfect, nor the Constitution a holy writ.
> 
> The best evidence that they were right is that lunkheads like you keep trying to distract from the historical evidence for why the legislative structure of the republic was set up the way it was, by creating strawmen, invoking moral equivalence, false dichotomies and other glaring fallacious arguments.
Click to expand...


In other words, as usual, Odd is getting his ass handed to him.  In no way, shape, or form by handing the Senate back to wealth and property would make governance in America any better.

The fact is that Odd does not like the fact we are equal before the law, that wealth and property convey no advantage theoretically, so he can go fart for all worth he is given his arguments here.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ".  They weren't gods.  They were human and made mistakes like anyone else.  I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman....Nobody said the framers were perfect, nor the Constitution a holy writ.
> 
> The best evidence that they were right is that lunkheads like you keep trying to distract from the historical evidence for why the legislative structure of the republic was set up the way it was, by creating strawmen, invoking moral equivalence, false dichotomies and other glaring fallacious arguments.
Click to expand...


The Republic was set up the way it was. As we progressed as a Republic we found that certain aspects were far from perfect. One of those was how we selected Senators. We are much better off as a country in the years since we decided to directly elect Senators


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Founders created a defect in the original selection of the Senate.  That was changed with the 17th.  America is much better off.


----------



## Listening

JakeStarkey said:


> The Founders created a defect in the original selection of the Senate.  That was changed with the 17th.  America is much better off.



In the end it is all a matter of opinion.

There is no meter you can put on this to determine which is better or worse.

The case you can make is that the 17th came about because of issues with the senate.

Given the herd of assholes we have on the hill now, you can make a case for going back.

It just depends on how hard conservatives want to work to get powers back into the hands of the senate.

Such absoute claims by you and RightWingNut are meaningless.


----------



## Peach

JakeStarkey said:


> The Founders created a defect in the original selection of the Senate.  That was changed with the 17th.  America is much better off.



At least Senators are not subject to the approval of STATE legislators, that could really be a "flame fest".


----------



## freedombecki

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Part of the reasons for the 17th were discord among state legislatures, vote buying, and accusations of fraud in voting. * An unwise repeal of an Amendment giving power to citizens is not called for.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the story as told by the progressive winners, who removed one of the checks and balances of the original republic....Yet we still have voter fraud and plenty of vote buying, though not by the same frauds and vote buyers.
> 
> The thinking person would in turn tend to not believe the alleged reasons for the 17th Amendment, if much the same conditions existed afterward as before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes! Let's take power away from the voters and put in the hands of more ALEC owned politicians! That'll fix it!
Click to expand...

The Democrat precinct chairmen already took power away from the voters of Minnesota, who elected Norm Coleman as Senator, but the precinct chairmen decided to overthrow the vote with "found" votes they pulled out of a hat, all the while squealing "Republicans want to make sure your vote doesn't count" when in fact, the Democrats didn't want the voters' votes to count, so they added their own extra votes and foisted that on the public. What a bunch of slimey criminals the Democrat precinct chairmen are.


----------



## Listening

JakeStarkey said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ".  They weren't gods.  They were human and made mistakes like anyone else.  I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman....Nobody said the framers were perfect, nor the Constitution a holy writ.
> 
> The best evidence that they were right is that lunkheads like you keep trying to distract from the historical evidence for why the legislative structure of the republic was set up the way it was, by creating strawmen, invoking moral equivalence, false dichotomies and other glaring fallacious arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, as usual, Odd is getting his ass handed to him.  In no way, shape, or form by handing the Senate back to wealth and property would make governance in America any better.
> 
> The fact is that Odd does not like the fact we are equal before the law, that wealth and property convey no advantage theoretically, so he can go fart for all worth he is given his arguments here.
Click to expand...


If you haven't checked lately, the senate is mostly millionaires.  In the early 1990's it seemed that 94 of our senators were millionaires.  So the wealthy already have it.

His arguments have been quite sound.  It is your rebuttals that have been pretty fecal in nature.  As has already been demonstrated, their positions won't change.  All that would change is how they are selected.  And given the nature of how we select things like the SCOTUS (they don't get elected, but are appointed by elected reps...and nobody is calling for their election), there is every reason to consider this as an alternative.


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ".  They weren't gods.  They were human and made mistakes like anyone else.  I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman....Nobody said the framers were perfect, nor the Constitution a holy writ.
> 
> The best evidence that they were right is that lunkheads like you keep trying to distract from the historical evidence for why the legislative structure of the republic was set up the way it was, by creating strawmen, invoking moral equivalence, false dichotomies and other glaring fallacious arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Republic was set up the way it was. As we progressed as a Republic we found that certain aspects were far from perfect. One of those was how we selected Senators. *We are much better off as a country in the years since we decided to directly elect Senators*
Click to expand...


As arguable and completely subjective an opinion as you're going to find.


----------



## Listening

Peach said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Founders created a defect in the original selection of the Senate.  That was changed with the 17th.  America is much better off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least Senators are not subject to the approval of STATE legislators, that could really be a "flame fest".
Click to expand...


And how great would it be to see this kind of process take place ?  I think it would be fantastic.  My state senator and member of the state house are not wealthy at all (one is a para from a local school).  There is nothing for them in appointing some rich fat cat.


----------



## Oddball

Navy1960 said:


> All agreed to a republican form of government grounded in representing the people in the states. For the legislature, two issues were to be decided, (1) how the votes were to be allocated among the states in the Congress, and (2) how the representatives should be elected. The question was settled by the Connecticut Compromise or "Great Compromise". In the House, state power was to be based on population and the people would vote. In the Senate, state power was to be based on state legislature election, *two Senators generally to be elected by different state legislatures to better reflect the long term interests of the people living in each state.*
> 
> "The use of the Senate is to consist in proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch."  James Madison
> 
> History of the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ." In the minds of many of the Founding Fathers, the Senate would be an American kind of House of Lords. John Dickinson said the Senate should* "consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible."[*
> 
> James Madison, the &#8220;Father of the Constitution*,&#8221; openly admitted that the equal suffrage in the Senate was a compromise, a &#8220;lesser evil,&#8221; and not born out of any political theory.*
> 
> *Since 1789, the Senate has become much more malaportioned. At the time of the Connecticut Compromise, the largest state, Virginia, had only twelve times the population of the smallest state, Delaware. Today, the largest state, California, has a population that is seventy times greater than the population of the smallest state, Wyoming. In 1790, it would take a theoretical 30% of the population to elect a majority of the Senate, today it would take 17%. Today, there are seven states with only one congressman (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming); never in the past has there been as high a proportion of one-congressmen states.*
> 
> Here's the thing,  at the time of the Constitutional Convention many of the Founding Fathers looked at the  British House of Lords as  a system to copy as it were when it came to the Senate and further still the Roman Senate as a model.  The Senate's creation was a result of  Compromise between the states  and not some grand plan by one man. Over the proceeding years * after it's creation, especially when it came to the State Legislatures picking Senators, there was a long history of graft and corruption as well as deadlocks that led to the  17th Amendment. * The idea  of  direct election of Senators was not something that just came up during the debate for  the 17th Amendment , it's  been part of this nations great debate all the way back to James Wilson a signer of the Constitution and member of the  " Committee of Detail"


There's a long history of corruption and graft of popularly elected Senators over the last 95 years....What's your point?


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman....Nobody said the framers were perfect, nor the Constitution a holy writ.
> 
> The best evidence that they were right is that lunkheads like you keep trying to distract from the historical evidence for why the legislative structure of the republic was set up the way it was, by creating strawmen, invoking moral equivalence, false dichotomies and other glaring fallacious arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Republic was set up the way it was. As we progressed as a Republic we found that certain aspects were far from perfect. One of those was how we selected Senators. *We are much better off as a country in the years since we decided to directly elect Senators*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As arguable and completely subjective an opinion as you're going to find.
Click to expand...


Maybe so...

But it is undeniable that we have evolved as a country since 1913. Women could not even vote in 1913. Electing  Senators directly is more in line with how we now function as a country


----------



## JakeStarkey

The point is that Odd has not made his case that the 17th should be amended.


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republic was set up the way it was. As we progressed as a Republic we found that certain aspects were far from perfect. One of those was how we selected Senators. *We are much better off as a country in the years since we decided to directly elect Senators*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As arguable and completely subjective an opinion as you're going to find.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe so...
> 
> But it is undeniable that we have evolved as a country since 1913. Women could not even vote in 1913. Electing  Senators directly is more in line with how we now function as a country
Click to expand...

We also had a federal gubmint that only consumed a few percent of GDP, no ridiculous foreign interventionist wars, no direct taxes on incomes, a currency of substance, virtually no federal debt and a national economy that was the greatest success story in all of human history.....Compared to the total mess we have today in the District of Criminals, that _*devolution*_.


----------



## Listening

Oddball said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All agreed to a republican form of government grounded in representing the people in the states. For the legislature, two issues were to be decided, (1) how the votes were to be allocated among the states in the Congress, and (2) how the representatives should be elected. The question was settled by the Connecticut Compromise or "Great Compromise". In the House, state power was to be based on population and the people would vote. In the Senate, state power was to be based on state legislature election, *two Senators generally to be elected by different state legislatures to better reflect the long term interests of the people living in each state.*
> 
> "The use of the Senate is to consist in proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch."  James Madison
> 
> History of the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ." In the minds of many of the Founding Fathers, the Senate would be an American kind of House of Lords. John Dickinson said the Senate should* "consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible."[*
> 
> James Madison, the Father of the Constitution*, openly admitted that the equal suffrage in the Senate was a compromise, a lesser evil, and not born out of any political theory.*
> 
> *Since 1789, the Senate has become much more malaportioned. At the time of the Connecticut Compromise, the largest state, Virginia, had only twelve times the population of the smallest state, Delaware. Today, the largest state, California, has a population that is seventy times greater than the population of the smallest state, Wyoming. In 1790, it would take a theoretical 30% of the population to elect a majority of the Senate, today it would take 17%. Today, there are seven states with only one congressman (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming); never in the past has there been as high a proportion of one-congressmen states.*
> 
> Here's the thing,  at the time of the Constitutional Convention many of the Founding Fathers looked at the  British House of Lords as  a system to copy as it were when it came to the Senate and further still the Roman Senate as a model.  The Senate's creation was a result of  Compromise between the states  and not some grand plan by one man. Over the proceeding years * after it's creation, especially when it came to the State Legislatures picking Senators, there was a long history of graft and corruption as well as deadlocks that led to the  17th Amendment. * The idea  of  direct election of Senators was not something that just came up during the debate for  the 17th Amendment , it's  been part of this nations great debate all the way back to James Wilson a signer of the Constitution and member of the  " Committee of Detail"
> 
> 
> 
> There's a long history of corruption and graft of popularly elected Senators over the last 95 years....What's your point?
Click to expand...


Not only that, but there is a good chance you need several million of your own to get into the club....even if you are honest.

BTW: Barbara BS's net worth has gone up significantly since she joined the senate.  How much do they pay these clowns ?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Blah blah blah .  .  . but nobody has given any definable, debatable, actionable reason to amend the 17th.

Their opinions are not facts.


----------



## Listening

JakeStarkey said:


> Blah blah blah .  .  . but nobody has given any definable, debatable, actionable reason to amend the 17th.
> 
> Their opinions are not facts.



I think I already said that was what both sides have.

Of course, there were no "facts" at the time it was put in place.  It was an effort to change something.  How do you know if it worked ?  You dont'.

The concept has been stated (so screw history or intent) that if we got senators appointed, we BELIEVE it would create more watchdogging for the states.

I don't think anyone has misrepresented that as a fact......


----------



## Oddball

Listening said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah .  .  . but nobody has given any definable, debatable, actionable reason to amend the 17th.
> 
> Their opinions are not facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I already said that was what both sides have.
> 
> Of course, there were no "facts" at the time it was put in place.  It was an effort to change something. * How do you know if it worked ?  You dont'.*
> 
> The concept has been stated (so screw history or intent) that if we got senators appointed, we BELIEVE it would create more watchdogging for the states.
> 
> I don't think anyone has misrepresented that as a fact......
Click to expand...

The only unverifiable and unfalsifiable opinions that count for anything are those offered up by leftists.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Or by wannabee libertarians like OddSparky who apparently wants corrupt appointee Senators: strange guy, Odd.


----------



## Oddball

Yet another baseless and completely flaccid strawman argument.

You do seem to be pretty good at those.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> As arguable and completely subjective an opinion as you're going to find.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe so...
> 
> But it is undeniable that we have evolved as a country since 1913. Women could not even vote in 1913. Electing  Senators directly is more in line with how we now function as a country
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also had a federal gubmint that only consumed a few percent of GDP, no ridiculous foreign interventionist wars, no direct taxes on incomes, a currency of substance, virtually no federal debt and a national economy that was the greatest success story in all of human history.....Compared to the total mess we have today in the District of Criminals, that _*devolution*_.
Click to expand...


In the period since 1913, we have moved from a second rate power to the richest and strongest nation on earth. The people are more secure and have a superior standard of living. That is a result of a higher percentage of GDP. 

Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oddball said:


> Yet another baseless and completely flaccid strawman argument.  You do seem to be pretty good at those.


  Yes, you are good at that, Odd.


----------



## rightwinger

Our country is more inclusive than our founding fathers envisioned. While they made major strides for the common man they didn't trust him entirely


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe so...
> 
> But it is undeniable that we have evolved as a country since 1913. Women could not even vote in 1913. Electing  Senators directly is more in line with how we now function as a country
> 
> 
> 
> We also had a federal gubmint that only consumed a few percent of GDP, no ridiculous foreign interventionist wars, no direct taxes on incomes, a currency of substance, virtually no federal debt and a national economy that was the greatest success story in all of human history.....Compared to the total mess we have today in the District of Criminals, that _*devolution*_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the period since 1913, we have moved from a second rate power to the richest and strongest nation on earth. The people are more secure and have a superior standard of living. That is a result of a higher percentage of GDP.
> 
> Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it
Click to expand...

We weren't a second rate power, Bubba....We were pretty much masters of the Western Hemisphere.

And America was already well on its way to being the most wealthy and strongest nation on Earth because of the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution, not because of anything that racist, tyrant thug Woodrow Wilson did.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also had a federal gubmint that only consumed a few percent of GDP, no ridiculous foreign interventionist wars, no direct taxes on incomes, a currency of substance, virtually no federal debt and a national economy that was the greatest success story in all of human history.....Compared to the total mess we have today in the District of Criminals, that _*devolution*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the period since 1913, we have moved from a second rate power to the richest and strongest nation on earth. The people are more secure and have a superior standard of living. That is a result of a higher percentage of GDP.
> 
> Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We weren't a second rate power, Bubba....We were pretty much masters of the Western Hemisphere.
> 
> And America was already well on its way to being the most wealthy and strongest nation on Earth because of the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution, not because of anything that racist, tyrant thug Woodrow Wilson did.
Click to expand...


Meaning we were bigger than Canada and a bunch of Banana Republics

It was Wilson who put us on track to be a global player


----------



## freedombecki

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the period since 1913, we have moved from a second rate power to the richest and strongest nation on earth. The people are more secure and have a superior standard of living. That is a result of a higher percentage of GDP.
> 
> Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it
> 
> 
> 
> We weren't a second rate power, Bubba....We were pretty much masters of the Western Hemisphere.
> 
> And America was already well on its way to being the most wealthy and strongest nation on Earth because of the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution, not because of anything that racist, tyrant thug Woodrow Wilson did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaning we were bigger than Canada and a bunch of Banana Republics
> 
> It was Wilson who put us on track to be a global player
Click to expand...

<<<<gong!>>>> That would be Dwight Eisenhower, actually.


----------



## rightwinger

freedombecki said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> We weren't a second rate power, Bubba....We were pretty much masters of the Western Hemisphere.
> 
> And America was already well on its way to being the most wealthy and strongest nation on Earth because of the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution, not because of anything that racist, tyrant thug Woodrow Wilson did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning we were bigger than Canada and a bunch of Banana Republics
> 
> It was Wilson who put us on track to be a global player
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> <<<<gong!>>>> That would be Dwight Eisenhower, actually.
Click to expand...


You would impress more if you had said FDR


----------



## Oddball

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the period since 1913, we have moved from a second rate power to the richest and strongest nation on earth. The people are more secure and have a superior standard of living. That is a result of a higher percentage of GDP.
> 
> Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it
> 
> 
> 
> We weren't a second rate power, Bubba....We were pretty much masters of the Western Hemisphere.
> 
> And America was already well on its way to being the most wealthy and strongest nation on Earth because of the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution, not because of anything that racist, tyrant thug Woodrow Wilson did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaning we were bigger than Canada and a bunch of Banana Republics
> 
> It was Wilson who put us on track to be a global player
Click to expand...

It was Wilson who put us on track to be the world's military butt-insky....Seems nobody on the left can mind their own damned business.


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> We also had a federal gubmint that only consumed a few percent of GDP, no ridiculous foreign interventionist wars, no direct taxes on incomes, a currency of substance, virtually no federal debt and a national economy that was the greatest success story in all of human history.....Compared to the total mess we have today in the District of Criminals, that _*devolution*_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the period since 1913, we have moved from a second rate power to the richest and strongest nation on earth. The people are more secure and have a superior standard of living. That is a result of a higher percentage of GDP.
> 
> Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We weren't a second rate power, Bubba....We were pretty much masters of the Western Hemisphere.
> 
> And America was already well on its way to being the most wealthy and strongest nation on Earth because of the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution, not because of anything that racist, tyrant thug Woodrow Wilson did.
Click to expand...


HAHAHAHAHA!

amazingly bad grasp of reality you have there.

We became the worlds manufacturing leader because we werent bombed to hell and back in the world wars. Our factories always stood while our conmpetitions factories were destroyed in two world wars. While we were building products, they were rebuilding cities and nations. Its fairly easy to become wealthy when you dont have to rebuild everything over and over.

Even then, it was only through the genius of Eisenhower that we truly became an economic superpower. In a perfect example of Government leading the way, he invested in infrastructure, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and providing private industry the means to ship its product across the country quickly and efficiently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956


----------



## Oddball

I was speaking of_* before *_1913, you putz.

Try and keep up.


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> I was speaking of_* before *_1913, you putz.
> 
> Try and keep up.



Before 1913, we were recovering from the Civil War. We werent a superpower, we were barely a power. 

We fought Spain, a declining power, to wrestle away a few places like Puerto Rico and the Phillipines from them. We intervened a few times in Latin America but that was mostly AFTER 1913. ( Mexico, 1914, Haiti 1915 )

So, what BEFORE 1913 are you refering too?

OOOOOOOHHHHHH!!!! You must be refering to the Progressive Era! Which began in 1890's and extrended all the way until the early 1920's! 

Is that what you mean? That we were a World Power under the Progressives?

But wait...I thought you were against Progressives? Isnt that right?

So how is it, you can reconcile the fact that the period youre refering to the US becoming a world power is known as the Progressive Era? Hmmm?


----------



## Oddball

The Industrial Revolution also happened prior to 1913.

Giving the warmongering tyrant Wilson the credit for the industriousness and inventiveness of the American people is the height of socialist progressive hubris.


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> We weren't a second rate power, Bubba....We were pretty much masters of the Western Hemisphere.
> 
> And America was already well on its way to being the most wealthy and strongest nation on Earth because of the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution, not because of anything that racist, tyrant thug Woodrow Wilson did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning we were bigger than Canada and a bunch of Banana Republics
> 
> It was Wilson who put us on track to be a global player
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was Wilson who put us on track to be the world's military butt-insky....Seems nobody on the left can mind their own damned business.
Click to expand...


Yup.....after we return to our pre-1913 form of government (gold standard anyone?)we can go back to being isolationist.


----------



## Oddball

So much for the myth of the peaceful piety of  socialist progressives.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oddball said:


> It was Wilson who put us on track to be the world's military butt-insky....Seems nobody on the left can mind their own damned business.



Because of Wilson and WWI, we became the industrial colossus of the world.  Because of FDR and WWII, we also became the military colossus of the world.  And Bush, a conservative in comparison to the Progressive and New Deal presidents, managed to almost break the military and the economy to boot.

You offer nothing constructive in opposition to those three.


----------



## Oddball

Because of Wilson and is arrogant meddling in WWI, WWII was inevitable....It also set the stage for the disastrous interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....

But hey, it's always a welcome sight to watch the left give us a full display of their love for meddlesome foreign wars.....It makes all your bitching bout _*GEORGE BOOOOOOOSH!!*_ ring extra hollow.


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> So much for the myth of the peaceful piety of  socialist progressives.




And so much for the myth of your understanding of history.

The Progressive Era coincided with the Industrial Revolution. The strength of our nation was built at that point on the backs of the working class being propeled into a new emerging Middle Class. 

Once again, proving that American growth is created NOT from the top down but from the bottom up.

Peace and piety are bullshit labels those who pretend to have understanding throw about like glitter bombs, hoping they stick but failing to make any real point other than their own patheticness.


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> Because of Wilson and is arrogant meddling in WWI, WWII was inevitable....It also set the stage for the disastrous interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....
> 
> But hey, it's always a welcome sight to watch the left give us a full display of their love for meddlesome foreign wars.....It makes all your bitching bout _*GEORGE BOOOOOOOSH!!*_ ring extra hollow.




now youre blaming Wilson for World War II?

Wow youll rewrite the ntirety of World History  to make a point wont you?

The most direct cause of World War II was the Treaty of Versailles, which threw Germany into a depression starting in the 1920's. A hungry and desperate people turned to Hitler to bring Germany back from the economic devestation that Treaty caused.

Had America been the world power you pretend it to be at the time, Wilson, as the littlest power in the "Big Three" may have been able to make some changes to alleve some of the burden placed on Germany by that Treaty. However, Wilson could not be seen as weak on Germany or he would surely be voted out in the next election and with both the British and the French ( the other two of the Big Three ) hell bent on revenge against Germany ( who hadnt started the war in the first place ) Wilson could do nothing as he was outnumbered. 

Then there was the League of Nations which was completely opposed by guess who? Yep, the Republicans. They wanted a return to the isolationist policies of the past, sure that in the future, we could not again be drawn into any more of "Europes wars"


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it



Another baseless conclusion that the left constantly bleats in an effort to somehow hypnotise people into thinking they should be grateful that Obama is trying to suck our liberties away at an incredible pace.


----------



## Oddball

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because of Wilson and is arrogant meddling in WWI, WWII was inevitable....It also set the stage for the disastrous interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....
> 
> But hey, it's always a welcome sight to watch the left give us a full display of their love for meddlesome foreign wars.....It makes all your bitching bout _*GEORGE BOOOOOOOSH!!*_ ring extra hollow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now youre blaming Wolson for World War II?
> 
> Wow youll rewrite the ntirety of World History  to make a point wont you?
> 
> The most direct cause of World War II was the Treaty of Versailles, which threw Germany into a depression starting in the 1920's. A hungry and desperate people turned to Hitler to bring Germany back from the economic devestation that Treaty caused.
> 
> Had America been the world power you pretend it to be at the time, Wilson, as the littlest power in the "Big Three" may have been able to make some changes to alleve some of the burden placed on Germany by that Treaty. However, Wilson could not be seen as weak on Germany or he would surely be voted out in the next election and with both the British and the French ( the other two of the Big Three ) hell bent on revenge against Germany ( who hadnt started the war in the first place ) Wilson could do nothing as he was outnumbered.
> 
> Then there was the League of Nations which was completely opposed by guess who? Yep, the Republicans. They wanted a return to the isolationist policies of the past, sure that in the future, we could not again be drawn into any more of "Europes wars"
Click to expand...

Anyone who knows history understands that the Treaty of Versailles, which Wilson was a party to, set the stage for WWII...So, yes, Wilson was responsible for the second war, however indirectly.

No American intervention, and the Europeans would've had to work it all out for themselves after the stalemated war.


----------



## Listening

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because of Wilson and is arrogant meddling in WWI, WWII was inevitable....It also set the stage for the disastrous interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....
> 
> But hey, it's always a welcome sight to watch the left give us a full display of their love for meddlesome foreign wars.....It makes all your bitching bout _*GEORGE BOOOOOOOSH!!*_ ring extra hollow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now youre blaming Wolson for World War II?
> 
> Wow youll rewrite the ntirety of World History  to make a point wont you?
> 
> The most direct cause of World War II was the Treaty of Versailles, which threw Germany into a depression starting in the 1920's. A hungry and desperate people turned to Hitler to bring Germany back from the economic devestation that Treaty caused.
> 
> Had America been the world power you pretend it to be at the time, Wilson, as the littlest power in the "Big Three" may have been able to make some changes to alleve some of the burden placed on Germany by that Treaty. However, Wilson could not be seen as weak on Germany or he would surely be voted out in the next election and with both the British and the French ( the other two of the Big Three ) hell bent on revenge against Germany ( who hadnt started the war in the first place ) Wilson could do nothing as he was outnumbered.
> 
> Then there was the League of Nations which was completely opposed by guess who? Yep, the Republicans. They wanted a return to the isolationist policies of the past, sure that in the future, we could not again be drawn into any more of "Europes wars"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who knows history understands that the Treaty of Versailles, which Wilson was a party to, set the stage for WWII...So, yes, Wilson was responsible for the second war, however indirectly.
> 
> No American intervention, and the Europeans would've had to work it all out for themselves after the stalemated war.
Click to expand...

 
What is more fascinating is Pat Buchanan's assertion that our entry into the war (WW II) caused the Iron Curtain.  He believes that had we not rattled our sabres Hitler would have focused on Russia alone and the two of them would have chewed each other up to the point that Russia would have had no punch once the war was over.  Germany would have still lost.  And England and the U.S. would have had minimal involvement.

All speculation...but not without some thought.

In the end we will never know because we did not go these specfic routes.

Now, what has this got to do with the 17th amendment ?  I am not sure.

What I am more tuned into is that if the senators had their strings pulled by state government, there would not be all this garbage that goes on where the fed just pushed unfunded mandates down the chain with a flip attitude of "deal with it".


----------



## Vidi

Listening said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> now youre blaming Wolson for World War II?
> 
> Wow youll rewrite the ntirety of World History  to make a point wont you?
> 
> The most direct cause of World War II was the Treaty of Versailles, which threw Germany into a depression starting in the 1920's. A hungry and desperate people turned to Hitler to bring Germany back from the economic devestation that Treaty caused.
> 
> Had America been the world power you pretend it to be at the time, Wilson, as the littlest power in the "Big Three" may have been able to make some changes to alleve some of the burden placed on Germany by that Treaty. However, Wilson could not be seen as weak on Germany or he would surely be voted out in the next election and with both the British and the French ( the other two of the Big Three ) hell bent on revenge against Germany ( who hadnt started the war in the first place ) Wilson could do nothing as he was outnumbered.
> 
> Then there was the League of Nations which was completely opposed by guess who? Yep, the Republicans. They wanted a return to the isolationist policies of the past, sure that in the future, we could not again be drawn into any more of "Europes wars"
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who knows history understands that the Treaty of Versailles, which Wilson was a party to, set the stage for WWII...So, yes, Wilson was responsible for the second war, however indirectly.
> 
> No American intervention, and the Europeans would've had to work it all out for themselves after the stalemated war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is more fascinating is Pat Buchanan's assertion that our entry into the war (WW II) caused the Iron Curtain.  He believes that had we not rattled our sabres Hitler would have focused on Russia alone and the two of them would have chewed each other up to the point that Russia would have had no punch once the war was over.  Germany would have still lost.  And England and the U.S. would have had minimal involvement.
> 
> All speculation...but not without some thought.
> 
> In the end we will never know because we did not go these specfic routes.
Click to expand...


The two front war certainly made the war impossible for Hitler to win. He should have dealt with Britain first then went after Russia. 

The simple fact is though, that the Russians pulled off the most amazing recovery in all of history, moving their destroyed factories out of the reach of German bombers and regearing up, especially in terms of tanks. They moved their entire industrial base in less than six months. Simply amazing. After the Battle of Kursk, the Germans had no chance, even if the Us had pulled out of the war, to defeat Russia.

Mr Buchannan is wrong. Had the US not been in the war, Russia would have had far more control of Eastern Europe and may have even continued on beyond Germany in a war of conquest all their own. After all, there was no longer a standing French Army and the Brits, God love them, were hurting far too much to take on Russia at that point. But then Russia did still have Japan to content with, so theres that little problem for them.


----------



## Oddball

No Treaty of Versailles = No Hitler = No WWII.


----------



## Listening

Tony BlankleyColumnist, author
Posted: January 27, 2010 12:03 PM BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Bloggers' Index 
Repeal the 17th Amendment

As I was preparing to write a column on the ludicrous maligning of the Tea Party movement by liberals, Democrats and the mainstream media (which I hope to write next week, instead), I started thinking about one of the key objectives of the Tea Party people -- the strict enforcement of the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people").

As an early 1960s vintage member of the then-new conservative movement, I remember us focusing on the 10th amendment during the 1964 Goldwater campaign. It has been a staple of conservative thought, and the continued dormancy of 10th amendment enforcement has been one of the failures of our now half-century-old movement.

But just as the Tea Party movement in so many ways seems to represent the 2.0 version of our movement, so I again thought about the 10th amendment anew. After about 10 seconds' thought, it struck me that the best way to revive the 10th Amendment is to repeal the 17th Amendment -- which changes the first paragraph of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution to provide that each state's senators are to be "elected by the people thereof" rather than being "chosen by the Legislature thereof." (As I Googled the topic, I found out that Ron Paul and others have been talking about this for years. It may be the only subject that could be proposed and ratified at a constitutional convention with three-fourths of the state legislatures.)

At first blush, this might seem counterintuitive, as the 17th Amendment was brought about by a populist movement supercharged by muckraking articles in the newspapers of William Randolph Hearst. Those articles exposed corporate bribery of state legislators to control senatorial votes. As the direct election of senators by the people was a reaction to the corrupt lobbying of state legislatures that so aggrieved late-19th-century Americans, it might seem odd to recommend its repeal now -- when again, corrupt lobbying and the aggrandizing of excessive government power over the people is part of the fuel that is driving the tea parties. It certainly seems particularly odd for me to suggest this just a week after the election of Scott Brown to the Senate by an aggrieved public that has just overwhelmed with their individual votes the Boston Democratic machine.

<snip>

The most efficient method of regaining the original constitutional balance is to return to the original constitutional structure. If senators were again selected by state legislatures, the longevity of Senate careers would be tethered to their vigilant defense of their state's interest -- rather than to the interest of Washington forces of influence.

The Senate then would take on its original function -- the place where the states are represented in the federal government.

http://townhall.com/columnists/tonyblankley/2010/01/27/repeal_the_17th_amendment/page/full/


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> No Treaty of Versailles = No Hitler = No WWII.



I agree however:



Oddball said:


> *Because of Wilson and is arrogant meddling in WWI, WWII was inevitable....*It also set the stage for the disastrous interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....
> 
> But hey, it's always a welcome sight to watch the left give us a full display of their love for meddlesome foreign wars.....It makes all your bitching bout _*GEORGE BOOOOOOOSH!!*_ ring extra hollow.





Oddball said:


> Anyone who knows history understands that the Treaty of Versailles, which Wilson was a party to, set the stage for WWII...So, yes, Wilson was responsible for the second war, however indirectly.
> 
> No American intervention, and the Europeans would've had to work it all out for themselves after the stalemated war.



You tried to lay the Treaty of Versialles at Wilsons feet.

Inaccurate at best.



Oh and I love the fact that you COMPLETELY IGNORED the fact that the era in which you claim America rose to power in the world has been labeled the Progessive Era.

Nice dodge on that bullet, eh? Now you can continue on with your inaccurate veiw of history unencumbered by the truth.


----------



## Oddball

Wilson was a party to the treaty...This is a historical fact that cannot be denied.

It's also undeniable that were there no American intervention in WWI, the war would've stalemated and the parties would have had to sue for a much more equitable peace agreement.

Ergo, Wilson's intervention was, at least indirectly, responsible for the rise of Hitler and WWII.


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> Wilson was a party to the treaty...This is a historical fact that cannot be denied.
> 
> It's also undeniable that were there no American intervention in WWI, the war would've stalemated and the parties would have had to sue for a much more equitable peace agreement.
> 
> Ergo, Wilson's intervention was, at least indirectly, responsible for the rise of Hitler and WWII.




wow what an embarassing stretch you made there.

Ok I can play too.

If the 300 had not stood up against the Persian King, Greece would have fallen and the western world never would have rose to power, therefore the rise of Hitler can be laid at the feet of King Leonidas of Sparta.

Makes about as much sense as youre making, Stretch Armstrong.


----------



## Oddball

Whatever, dude.

You want to take up for one of the most despotic warmongers of the 20th century, that's your problem.


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> Whatever, dude.
> 
> You want to take up for one of the most despotic warmongers of the 20th century, that's your problem.



Everything you say is like:

2 + 2 = starfish

You make no sense at all.




> Thomas Woodrow Wilson, better known as Woodrow Wilson, was the ultimate altruist. His vision for world peace through a League of Nations would never manifest. History has very high regard for President Wilson; *he was a man with extremely high principles and very high regard for peace and progress. *To his chagrin, he would encounter an obstacle many philosophers of peace believe can be overcome with contentment: human nature.
> 
> The legacy of Woodrow Wilson - by Tom Koecke - Helium



Good thing Im here to set you straight huh?


----------



## Oddball

*chortle*

Your decisively anti-libertarain worship of race bigotry is showing, Dudley.


> *When Bigots Become Reformers
> The Progressive Era's shameful record on race.*
> 
> The Progressive movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance to new immigrants and the poor, women&#8217;s suffrage, and electoral reform, among much else.
> 
> Today many on the liberal left would like to revive that movement and its aura of social justice. Journalist Bill Moyers, speaking at a conference sponsored by the left-wing Campaign for America&#8217;s Future, described Progressivism as &#8220;one of the country&#8217;s great traditions.&#8221; Progressives, he told the crowd, &#8220;exalted and extended the original American Revolution. They spelled out new terms of partnership between the people and their rulers. And they kindled a flame that lit some of the most prosperous decades in modern history.&#8221;
> 
> Yet the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism.* In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow.* Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book, The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 1900&#8211;1917, the very worst of it&#8212;disfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynching&#8212;&#8220;went hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism.&#8221; Racism was the norm, not the exception, among the very crusaders romanticized by today&#8217;s activist left.
> 
> <snip>
> *
> Woodrow Wilson, whose Progressive presidential legacy includes the Federal Reserve System, a federal loan program for farmers, and an eight-hour workday for railroad employees, segregated the federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. &#8220;I have recently spent several days in Washington,&#8221; the black leader Booker T. Washington wrote during Wilson&#8217;s first term, &#8220;and I have never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time*.



When Bigots Become Reformers - Reason Magazine


----------



## rightwinger

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another baseless conclusion that the left constantly bleats in an effort to somehow hypnotise people into thinking they should be grateful that Obama is trying to suck our liberties away at an incredible pace.
Click to expand...


We have achieved our current power and global influence because we have a strong central government. We never could have emerged from WWII as a superpower if not for the power of the federal government


----------



## rightwinger

Oddball said:


> *chortle*
> 
> Your decisively anti-libertarain worship of race bigotry is showing, Dudley.
> 
> 
> 
> *When Bigots Become Reformers
> The Progressive Era's shameful record on race.*
> 
> The Progressive movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance to new immigrants and the poor, womens suffrage, and electoral reform, among much else.
> 
> Today many on the liberal left would like to revive that movement and its aura of social justice. Journalist Bill Moyers, speaking at a conference sponsored by the left-wing Campaign for Americas Future, described Progressivism as one of the countrys great traditions. Progressives, he told the crowd, exalted and extended the original American Revolution. They spelled out new terms of partnership between the people and their rulers. And they kindled a flame that lit some of the most prosperous decades in modern history.
> 
> Yet the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism.* In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow.* Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book, The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 19001917, the very worst of itdisfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynchingwent hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism. Racism was the norm, not the exception, among the very crusaders romanticized by todays activist left.
> 
> <snip>
> *
> Woodrow Wilson, whose Progressive presidential legacy includes the Federal Reserve System, a federal loan program for farmers, and an eight-hour workday for railroad employees, segregated the federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. I have recently spent several days in Washington, the black leader Booker T. Washington wrote during Wilsons first term, and I have never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Bigots Become Reformers - Reason Magazine
Click to expand...


Impressive twisting of history. What you neglect to include was that the institutional racism was pervasive and was not isolated to that era. You also neglected to mention that the Jim Crow laws were exclusively in the south which primarily maintained an agrarian economy and was rebelling against newfound freedoms of blacks entering the middle class


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another baseless conclusion that the left constantly bleats in an effort to somehow hypnotise people into thinking they should be grateful that Obama is trying to suck our liberties away at an incredible pace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We have achieved our current power and global influence because we have a strong central government. We never could have emerged from WWII as a superpower if not for the power of the federal government
Click to expand...


The federal government was always "strong" in the areas needed to be a superpower.

Your claim here is an apples make oranges fallacy.


----------



## Listening

rightwinger said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> *chortle*
> 
> Your decisively anti-libertarain worship of race bigotry is showing, Dudley.
> 
> 
> 
> *When Bigots Become Reformers
> The Progressive Era's shameful record on race.*
> 
> The Progressive movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance to new immigrants and the poor, womens suffrage, and electoral reform, among much else.
> 
> Today many on the liberal left would like to revive that movement and its aura of social justice. Journalist Bill Moyers, speaking at a conference sponsored by the left-wing Campaign for Americas Future, described Progressivism as one of the countrys great traditions. Progressives, he told the crowd, exalted and extended the original American Revolution. They spelled out new terms of partnership between the people and their rulers. And they kindled a flame that lit some of the most prosperous decades in modern history.
> 
> Yet the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism.* In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow.* Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book, The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 19001917, the very worst of itdisfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynchingwent hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism. Racism was the norm, not the exception, among the very crusaders romanticized by todays activist left.
> 
> <snip>
> *
> Woodrow Wilson, whose Progressive presidential legacy includes the Federal Reserve System, a federal loan program for farmers, and an eight-hour workday for railroad employees, segregated the federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. I have recently spent several days in Washington, the black leader Booker T. Washington wrote during Wilsons first term, and I have never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Bigots Become Reformers - Reason Magazine
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Impressive twisting of history. What you neglect to include was that the institutional racism was pervasive and was not isolated to that era. You also neglected to mention that the Jim Crow laws were exclusively in the south which primarily maintained an agrarian economy and was rebelling against newfound freedoms of blacks entering the middle class
Click to expand...


The next fallback position on the left.

Historically, it cannot be refuted.

Conclusion: make sure you throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## rightwinger

Listening said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another baseless conclusion that the left constantly bleats in an effort to somehow hypnotise people into thinking they should be grateful that Obama is trying to suck our liberties away at an incredible pace.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have achieved our current power and global influence because we have a strong central government. We never could have emerged from WWII as a superpower if not for the power of the federal government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The federal government was always "strong" in the areas needed to be a superpower.
> 
> Your claim here is an apples make oranges fallacy.
Click to expand...


In fact, they weren't

In the long lost era that libertarians yearn for, the federal government was weak, industry was a free for all, the financial sector was unchecked. Globally, we had our head in the sand believing that if we stayed out of global affairs, they would have no effect on us. 

In WWII, the federal government took control of the wartime economy and all manufacturing and resource allocation. Relying on the coordination of 48 states to develop the wartime production would have been a disaster


----------



## Dante

the Right Wing Lunacy @ USMB susck at science and history? score another one for the ole gipper and his legacy

go figure


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> *chortle*
> 
> Your decisively anti-libertarain worship of race bigotry is showing, Dudley.
> 
> 
> 
> *When Bigots Become Reformers
> The Progressive Era's shameful record on race.*
> 
> The Progressive movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance to new immigrants and the poor, womens suffrage, and electoral reform, among much else.
> 
> Today many on the liberal left would like to revive that movement and its aura of social justice. Journalist Bill Moyers, speaking at a conference sponsored by the left-wing Campaign for Americas Future, described Progressivism as one of the countrys great traditions. Progressives, he told the crowd, exalted and extended the original American Revolution. They spelled out new terms of partnership between the people and their rulers. And they kindled a flame that lit some of the most prosperous decades in modern history.
> 
> Yet the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism.* In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow.* Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book, The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 19001917, the very worst of itdisfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynchingwent hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism. Racism was the norm, not the exception, among the very crusaders romanticized by todays activist left.
> 
> <snip>
> *
> Woodrow Wilson, whose Progressive presidential legacy includes the Federal Reserve System, a federal loan program for farmers, and an eight-hour workday for railroad employees, segregated the federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. I have recently spent several days in Washington, the black leader Booker T. Washington wrote during Wilsons first term, and I have never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Bigots Become Reformers - Reason Magazine
Click to expand...


I've notice you like to deflect into another irrelevant point as soon as you've been completely pwned on the last one.

Nice strawman, poindexter


----------



## Oddball

You're the one genuflecting at the altar of one of the 20th century's greatest tyrants, warmongers and race bigots, not me.

Sorry you can't deal with the truth.


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> You're the one genuflecting at the altar of one of the 20th century's greatest tyrants, warmongers and race bigots, not me.
> 
> Sorry you can't deal with the truth.




Everything you've said has been debunked, or ignored as the desperate deflection it is. Move on to your next strawman deflection.


----------



## Listening

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one genuflecting at the altar of one of the 20th century's greatest tyrants, warmongers and race bigots, not me.
> 
> Sorry you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you've said has been debunked, or ignored as the desperate deflection it is. Move on to your next strawman deflection.
Click to expand...


In reading through this exchange, it suffers like just about every other thread.  The defintions are not the same.  You've put forth counters, but you've not debunked anything.  In the end, it is up to the individual reader to determine what still stands and what has been taken down.

I also think your use of the words desperate deflection are a bit telling.  Usually the one using this term is doing the desperate deflecting.


----------



## Oddball

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one genuflecting at the altar of one of the 20th century's greatest tyrants, warmongers and race bigots, not me.
> 
> Sorry you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you've said has been debunked, or ignored as the desperate deflection it is. Move on to your next strawman deflection.
Click to expand...

The only people doing the desperate deflecting are the desperate apologists like you.

My only two points in this thread, which have yet to be debunked despite your spurious claim, are:

#1 The original intent of the appointed Senate was for states to have a say in federal spending and bureaucracy....This is a matter of verifiable historical fact.

#2 That since the passage of the 17th Amendment, federal spending has ballooned from consuming a few percent to the neighborhood of 20% of all American GDP, which is also an undeniable fact.

All of the fallacious arguments, strawmen, non sequitur, unfalsifiable opinion and deflections have come from the apologists for mob rule like you.


----------



## Vidi

Listening said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one genuflecting at the altar of one of the 20th century's greatest tyrants, warmongers and race bigots, not me.
> 
> Sorry you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you've said has been debunked, or ignored as the desperate deflection it is. Move on to your next strawman deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In reading through this exchange, it suffers like just about every other thread.  The defintions are not the same.  You've put forth counters, but you've not debunked anything.  In the end, it is up to the individual reader to determine what still stands and what has been taken down.
> 
> I also think your use of the words desperate deflection are a bit telling.  Usually the one using this term is doing the desperate deflecting.
Click to expand...



Hardly. 

And if you read it through, you would see he twisted and turned from outrageous claim to outrageous claim in everyday imaginable to avoid commenting on the fact that the era he proclaimed as Americas rise is known as the Progressive Era.


No one with even a little understanding of American History, could defend his ridiculously inaccurate remarks.


Try this:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/History-American-People-Paul-Johnson/dp/0060930349]Amazon.com: A History of the American People (9780060930349): Paul Johnson: Books[/ame]

then this:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-Present/dp/0060838655/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335373934&sr=1-2]Amazon.com: A People&#39;s History of the United States: 1492 to Present (9780060838652): Howard Zinn: Books[/ame]


They're not a complete cure, but they're a start.


----------



## konradv

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one genuflecting at the altar of one of the 20th century's greatest tyrants, warmongers and race bigots, not me.
> 
> Sorry you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you've said has been debunked, or ignored as the desperate deflection it is. Move on to your next strawman deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people doing the desperate deflecting are the desperate apologists like you.
> 
> My only two points in this thread, which have yet to be debunked despite your spurious claim, are:
> 
> #1 The original intent of the appointed Senate was for states to have a say in federal spending and bureaucracy....This is a matter of verifiable historical fact.
> 
> #2 That since the passage of the 17th Amendment, federal spending has ballooned from consuming a few percent to the neighborhood of 20% of all American GDP, which is also an undeniable fact.
> 
> All of the fallacious arguments, strawmen, non sequitur, unfalsifiable opinion and deflections have come from the apologists for mob rule like you.
Click to expand...


You forgot #3: Proof that #s 1 & 2 are connected or that things would be any different under the old system.  FAIL


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the one genuflecting at the altar of one of the 20th century's greatest tyrants, warmongers and race bigots, not me.
> 
> Sorry you can't deal with the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you've said has been debunked, or ignored as the desperate deflection it is. Move on to your next strawman deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only people doing the desperate deflecting are the desperate apologists like you.
> 
> My only two points in this thread, which have yet to be debunked despite your spurious claim, are:
> 
> #1 The original intent of the appointed Senate was for states to have a say in federal spending and bureaucracy....This is a matter of verifiable historical fact.
> 
> #2 That since the passage of the 17th Amendment, federal spending has ballooned from consuming a few percent to the neighborhood of 20% of all American GDP, which is also an undeniable fact.
> 
> All of the fallacious arguments, strawmen, non sequitur, unfalsifiable opinion and deflections have come from the apologists for mob rule like you.
Click to expand...


Those were your ONLY two points huh? hmmmm....



So you didnt post:



Oddball said:


> We weren't a second rate power, Bubba....We were pretty much masters of the Western Hemisphere.
> 
> And America was already well on its way to being the most wealthy and strongest nation on Earth because of the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution, not because of anything that racist, tyrant thug Woodrow Wilson did.



and you didnt post:



Oddball said:


> The Industrial Revolution also happened prior to 1913.
> 
> Giving the warmongering tyrant Wilson the credit for the industriousness and inventiveness of the American people is the height of socialist progressive hubris.



and certainly not:



Oddball said:


> Because of Wilson and is arrogant meddling in WWI, WWII was inevitable....It also set the stage for the disastrous interventions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan.....
> 
> But hey, it's always a welcome sight to watch the left give us a full display of their love for meddlesome foreign wars.....It makes all your bitching bout _*GEORGE BOOOOOOOSH!!*_ ring extra hollow.




Which means you DEFINITELY didnt post:



Oddball said:


> *chortle*
> 
> Your decisively anti-libertarain worship of race bigotry is showing, Dudley.
> 
> 
> 
> *When Bigots Become Reformers
> The Progressive Era's shameful record on race.*
> 
> The Progressive movement swept America from roughly the early 1890s through the early 1920s, producing a broad popular consensus that government should be the primary agent of social change. To that end, legions of idealistic young crusaders, operating at the local, state, and federal levels, seized and wielded sweeping new powers and enacted a mountain of new legislation, including minimum wage and maximum hour laws, antitrust statutes, restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcohol, appropriations for hundreds of miles of roads and highways, assistance to new immigrants and the poor, womens suffrage, and electoral reform, among much else.
> 
> Today many on the liberal left would like to revive that movement and its aura of social justice. Journalist Bill Moyers, speaking at a conference sponsored by the left-wing Campaign for Americas Future, described Progressivism as one of the countrys great traditions. Progressives, he told the crowd, exalted and extended the original American Revolution. They spelled out new terms of partnership between the people and their rulers. And they kindled a flame that lit some of the most prosperous decades in modern history.
> 
> Yet the Progressive Era was also a time of vicious, state-sponsored racism.* In fact, from the standpoint of African-American history, the Progressive Era qualifies as arguably the single worst period since Emancipation. The wholesale disfranchisement of Southern black voters occurred during these years, as did the rise and triumph of Jim Crow.* Furthermore, as the Westminster College historian David W. Southern notes in his recent book, The Progressive Era and Race: Reform and Reaction, 19001917, the very worst of itdisfranchisement, segregation, race baiting, lynchingwent hand-in-hand with the most advanced forms of southern progressivism. Racism was the norm, not the exception, among the very crusaders romanticized by todays activist left.
> 
> <snip>
> *
> Woodrow Wilson, whose Progressive presidential legacy includes the Federal Reserve System, a federal loan program for farmers, and an eight-hour workday for railroad employees, segregated the federal bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. I have recently spent several days in Washington, the black leader Booker T. Washington wrote during Wilsons first term, and I have never seen the colored people so discouraged and bitter as they are at the present time*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When Bigots Become Reformers - Reason Magazine
Click to expand...





So yeah,


except for all of THOSE points, you only had TWO points this ENTIRE thread.


----------



## Vidi

konradv said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you've said has been debunked, or ignored as the desperate deflection it is. Move on to your next strawman deflection.
> 
> 
> 
> The only people doing the desperate deflecting are the desperate apologists like you.
> 
> My only two points in this thread, which have yet to be debunked despite your spurious claim, are:
> 
> #1 The original intent of the appointed Senate was for states to have a say in federal spending and bureaucracy....This is a matter of verifiable historical fact.
> 
> #2 That since the passage of the 17th Amendment, federal spending has ballooned from consuming a few percent to the neighborhood of 20% of all American GDP, which is also an undeniable fact.
> 
> All of the fallacious arguments, strawmen, non sequitur, unfalsifiable opinion and deflections have come from the apologists for mob rule like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You forgot #3: Proof that #s 1 & 2 are connected or that things would be any different under the old system.  FAIL
Click to expand...


yep...I agree. Prove that those two points make a difference or theyre irrelevent.


----------



## Listening

This is really not a topic of conversatino amongst the GOP.


----------



## Oddball

Vidi said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only people doing the desperate deflecting are the desperate apologists like you.
> 
> My only two points in this thread, which have yet to be debunked despite your spurious claim, are:
> 
> #1 The original intent of the appointed Senate was for states to have a say in federal spending and bureaucracy....This is a matter of verifiable historical fact.
> 
> #2 That since the passage of the 17th Amendment, federal spending has ballooned from consuming a few percent to the neighborhood of 20% of all American GDP, which is also an undeniable fact.
> 
> All of the fallacious arguments, strawmen, non sequitur, unfalsifiable opinion and deflections have come from the apologists for mob rule like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot #3: Proof that #s 1 & 2 are connected or that things would be any different under the old system.  FAIL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yep...I agree. Prove that those two points make a difference or theyre irrelevent.
Click to expand...

The reason for the structure is a matter of historical fact, as is the explosion of federal spending since 1913.

But you two could just be intellectually honest and admit that there's no evidence that you would accept, and save us all a lot of time and effort.


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot #3: Proof that #s 1 & 2 are connected or that things would be any different under the old system.  FAIL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep...I agree. Prove that those two points make a difference or theyre irrelevent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason for the structure is a matter of historical fact, as is the explosion of federal spending since 1913.
> 
> But you two could just be intellectually honest and admit that there's no evidence that you would accept, and save us all a lot of time and effort.
Click to expand...



Or you could actually present some evidence...oh wait, thats right, you're another one of those "because I say so" neocon sheep, aren't you?

But there IS no evidence that the two are related is there?


----------



## Old Rocks

Ah, you dingbats wanting to change the Senate from elected men and women, to appointed women and men, are just fronting for the billionaires that would get to do the appointing. That is the history of the why of the 17th Amendment.


----------



## Oddball

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep...I agree. Prove that those two points make a difference or theyre irrelevent.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason for the structure is a matter of historical fact, as is the explosion of federal spending since 1913.
> 
> But you two could just be intellectually honest and admit that there's no evidence that you would accept, and save us all a lot of time and effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Or you could actually present some evidence...oh wait, thats right, you're another one of those "because I say so" neocon sheep, aren't you?
Click to expand...

The historical evidence for why the federal legislature was set up that way has already been presented, and you've rejected it out of hand....The removal of that check on federal power, along with the passage of the Fed (can tax via inflation) and 16th Amendment 9no more apportionment of direct taxation), and the explosion of federal spending, international military intervention and adventurism, and massive bureaucratic bloat are directly attributable to the fact that nobody at any level can stop any of it.

Your living in denial is your problem...You're another one of those "communism works despite all the historical evidence to the contrary" sheep, aren't you?


----------



## Listening

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot #3: Proof that #s 1 & 2 are connected or that things would be any different under the old system.  FAIL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yep...I agree. Prove that those two points make a difference or theyre irrelevent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason for the structure is a matter of historical fact, as is the explosion of federal spending since 1913.
> 
> But you two could just be intellectually honest and admit that there's no evidence that you would accept, and save us all a lot of time and effort.
Click to expand...


I would agree that people like Vidi are a waste of time and effort.

As I have stated previously, it really does not matter that historically it fits as you have described....even if it didn't, I'd still vote for it today.  You can see what it is like NOT to have watchdogs for the state in congress.

What needs to happen is that conservatives need to coalesce behind this effort.  There are a lot of GOP statehouses (imagine that) and there is a chance that if we could ever get the senate to do something...that it could be repealed.

Vidi would just sit on the sideline lamenting the fact that his votes just got more powerful and that his liberty was likely to be increased.


----------



## Vidi

Listening said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> yep...I agree. Prove that those two points make a difference or theyre irrelevent.
> 
> 
> 
> The reason for the structure is a matter of historical fact, as is the explosion of federal spending since 1913.
> 
> But you two could just be intellectually honest and admit that there's no evidence that you would accept, and save us all a lot of time and effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would agree that people like Vidi are a waste of time and effort.
> 
> As I have stated previously, it really does not matter that historically it fits as you have described....even if it didn't, I'd still vote for it today.  You can see what it is like NOT to have watchdogs for the state in congress.
> 
> What needs to happen is that conservatives need to coalesce behind this effort.  There are a lot of GOP statehouses (imagine that) and there is a chance that if we could ever get the senate to do something...that it could be repealed.
> 
> Vidi would just sit on the sideline lamenting the fact that his votes just got more powerful and that his liberty was likely to be increased.
Click to expand...


LOL

Too damn funny.

History doesnt matter huh? Tell me then sir, if history doesnt matter, would it matter WHY it was changed from State legislatures to the will of the People?
Shouldnt you AT LEAST consider the history of WHY a change was made before you BLINDLY advocate changing it back?

Dont have a fucking clue why do you? Go on. Go google it. Then get back to me on how your last sentence is complete and utter bullshit.


----------



## Listening

Vidi said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason for the structure is a matter of historical fact, as is the explosion of federal spending since 1913.
> 
> But you two could just be intellectually honest and admit that there's no evidence that you would accept, and save us all a lot of time and effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that people like Vidi are a waste of time and effort.
> 
> As I have stated previously, it really does not matter that historically it fits as you have described....even if it didn't, I'd still vote for it today.  You can see what it is like NOT to have watchdogs for the state in congress.
> 
> What needs to happen is that conservatives need to coalesce behind this effort.  There are a lot of GOP statehouses (imagine that) and there is a chance that if we could ever get the senate to do something...that it could be repealed.
> 
> Vidi would just sit on the sideline lamenting the fact that his votes just got more powerful and that his liberty was likely to be increased.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Too damn funny.
> 
> History doesnt matter huh? Tell me then sir, if history doesnt matter, would it matter WHY it was changed from State legislatures to the will of the People?
> Shouldnt you AT LEAST consider the history of WHY a change was made before you BLINDLY advocate changing it back?
> 
> Dont have a fucking clue why do you? Go on. Go google it. Then get back to me on how your last sentence is complete and utter bullshit.
Click to expand...


And how would you know what I know and don't know ?

Sorry chump.....I'll just stay engaged with those who might make it happen and really hope that you don't get your foot run over in the process.


----------



## Vidi

Listening said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree that people like Vidi are a waste of time and effort.
> 
> As I have stated previously, it really does not matter that historically it fits as you have described....even if it didn't, I'd still vote for it today.  You can see what it is like NOT to have watchdogs for the state in congress.
> 
> What needs to happen is that conservatives need to coalesce behind this effort.  There are a lot of GOP statehouses (imagine that) and there is a chance that if we could ever get the senate to do something...that it could be repealed.
> 
> Vidi would just sit on the sideline lamenting the fact that his votes just got more powerful and that his liberty was likely to be increased.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Too damn funny.
> 
> History doesnt matter huh? Tell me then sir, if history doesnt matter, would it matter WHY it was changed from State legislatures to the will of the People?
> Shouldnt you AT LEAST consider the history of WHY a change was made before you BLINDLY advocate changing it back?
> 
> Dont have a fucking clue why do you? Go on. Go google it. Then get back to me on how your last sentence is complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how would you know what I know and don't know ?
> 
> Sorry chump.....I'll just stay engaged with those who might make it happen and really hope that you don't get your foot run over in the process.
Click to expand...



Bacause if you knew WHY it was changed, you would understand that the last sentence proclaiming that my vote would be more powerful and my liberty increased is utter nonsense. 

Strike one.

Try again.


----------



## Listening

Vidi said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Too damn funny.
> 
> History doesnt matter huh? Tell me then sir, if history doesnt matter, would it matter WHY it was changed from State legislatures to the will of the People?
> Shouldnt you AT LEAST consider the history of WHY a change was made before you BLINDLY advocate changing it back?
> 
> Dont have a fucking clue why do you? Go on. Go google it. Then get back to me on how your last sentence is complete and utter bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you know what I know and don't know ?
> 
> Sorry chump.....I'll just stay engaged with those who might make it happen and really hope that you don't get your foot run over in the process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bacause if you knew WHY it was changed, you would understand that the last sentence proclaiming that my vote would be more powerful and my liberty increased is utter nonsense.
> 
> Strike one.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


There is no way to know until we return back to the way it was before.  Until then, it is all guessing.


----------



## Vidi

Listening said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you know what I know and don't know ?
> 
> Sorry chump.....I'll just stay engaged with those who might make it happen and really hope that you don't get your foot run over in the process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bacause if you knew WHY it was changed, you would understand that the last sentence proclaiming that my vote would be more powerful and my liberty increased is utter nonsense.
> 
> Strike one.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no way to know until we return back to the way it was before.  Until then, it is all guessing.
Click to expand...


ooo strike TWO

those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

insanity - doing the same thing over and oevr and expecting different results

So youre advocating repeating the mistakes of the past rather than fixing the problems of today?


----------



## Oddball

Vidi said:


> those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> insanity - doing the same thing over and oevr and expecting different results
> 
> So youre advocating repeating the mistakes of the past rather than fixing the problems of today?


The irony of this is astonishing.


----------



## Listening

Vidi said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bacause if you knew WHY it was changed, you would understand that the last sentence proclaiming that my vote would be more powerful and my liberty increased is utter nonsense.
> 
> Strike one.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no way to know until we return back to the way it was before.  Until then, it is all guessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ooo strike TWO
> 
> those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> insanity - doing the same thing over and oevr and expecting different results
> 
> So youre advocating repeating the mistakes of the past rather than fixing the problems of today?
Click to expand...


Enjoy making things up to argue against ?

But then, we are discussing a sructural issue, not a matter of governance.

And I would think that a great many people stepping into the voting booth in 2012 are going to be thinking about that definition of insanity as they chose the biggest loser (and vote against him/her) in some very key elections.

As to repeating the mistakes of the past....said mistakes still go in a great many forms.

All these arguments are repeat that have been repeatedly repeated again and again.

I am for joining those who want to repeal it.  If we can get it done great.  If not....tough for us.


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> insanity - doing the same thing over and oevr and expecting different results
> 
> So youre advocating repeating the mistakes of the past rather than fixing the problems of today?
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of this is astonishing.
Click to expand...


shuush...or do you want me to spank you in this thread too?


----------



## Oddball

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> insanity - doing the same thing over and oevr and expecting different results
> 
> So youre advocating repeating the mistakes of the past rather than fixing the problems of today?
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of this is astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> shuush...or do you want me to spank you in this thread too?
Click to expand...

You haven't spanked anything other than your monkey, junior.


----------



## Listening

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
> 
> insanity - doing the same thing over and oevr and expecting different results
> 
> So youre advocating repeating the mistakes of the past rather than fixing the problems of today?
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of this is astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> shuush...or do you want me to spank you in this thread too?
Click to expand...


Uh oh....

Sounds like we have another Black Knight (via Monty Python) on the board.


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of this is astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shuush...or do you want me to spank you in this thread too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't spanked anything other than your monkey, junior.
Click to expand...



You really should concentrate on one argument at a time. You just scored the fail hat trick in the other thread. Do you get a special title with that?


----------



## Oddball

You'd do well to follow your own advice, slapnutz.


----------



## Vidi

Listening said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> The irony of this is astonishing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> shuush...or do you want me to spank you in this thread too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh oh....
> 
> Sounds like we have another Black Knight (via Monty Python) on the board.
Click to expand...


See the black knight was actually wounded.

Unfortunately as the two of you are currently unarmed, or shooting blanks, or whatever lame ass metaphor floats your boat...I am still perfectly intact and my argument still stands.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. 

repealing the 17th amendment without understanding why it was added in the first place is a knee jerk response of an uninformed mind.

So why did they enact the 17th amendment in the first place?





I feel bad for you two...its like fish in a barrel...so heres a REALLY BIG hint:

FBI: Illinois Governor Sought To "Sell" Obama's Senate Seat - ABC News


----------



## Oddball

Wow...Corruption in politics!...Whodathunkit?

Too bad that Blago doesn't explain away the original reason that Senators were appointed by and beholden to the state legislatures.

But don't let that stop you from your regularly scheduled self-congratulation and condescending chickenshit...Wouldn't want to break your rhythm.


----------



## Listening

The structural arrangement of the senate selection was put in place for a specfic reason.  The need for those watchdogs may not have been as clear in 1913....but history shows us what a mistake it was for the states to give up something so necessary instead of fixing the issues of the time.

Those issues have not gone away with the passage of the 17th.  You have corruption at all levels and you also have money and power mixed in D.C. at an unprecidented level. 

Wishing for the republics watchdogs to return and the re-elevation of the 10th amendment is nothing more than making politics more personal and more local.


----------



## Vidi

Listening said:


> The structural arrangement of the senate selection was put in place for a specfic reason.  The need for those watchdogs may not have been as clear in 1913....but history shows us what a mistake it was for the states to give up something so necessary instead of fixing the issues of the time.
> 
> Those issues have not gone away with the passage of the 17th.  You have corruption at all levels and you also have money and power mixed in D.C. at an unprecidented level.
> 
> Wishing for the republics watchdogs to return and the re-elevation of the 10th amendment is nothing more than making politics more personal and more local.



Actually history shows us that corruption on the local level meant the appointments were rarely in the best interests of the States themselves. If one TRULY wanted to advocate for States rights, repealing the 17th amendment would be the LAST thing one would advocate.


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> Wow...Corruption in politics!...Whodathunkit?
> 
> Too bad that Blago doesn't explain away the original reason that Senators were appointed by and beholden to the state legislatures.
> 
> But don't let that stop you from your regularly scheduled self-congratulation and condescending chickenshit...Wouldn't want to break your rhythm.



wow the ignorance just drips from every one of your posts, doesnt it? 

to use your own word...extrapolate.

Or better yet....stop being so damned lazy and try Google. Youll get the answer on the first page...YOU may not understand it...but itll be there nonetheless.


----------



## Oddball

I understand the core argument just fine...And you've made no cogent to refutation.

Political corruption in picking an appointee still doesn't change the fact that said appointee would still be beholden to and serving at the pleasure of the state legislatures.

All your condescending egomaniacal deflections, diversions, ad hominems, non sequitr, red herrings and the entire litany of fallacious argumentation cannot change the fact.

Speaking of Google, try "Federalist Papers".


----------



## Oddball

From Federalist #62:


> II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. *It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.*



*The Senate
Independent Journal
Wednesday, February 27, 1788
[James Madison]*

I believe that you were sputtering some spittle about using Google?


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> I understand the core argument just fine...And you've made no cogent to refutation.
> 
> Political corruption in picking an appointee still doesn't change the fact that said appointee would still be beholden to and serving at the pleasure of the state legislatures.
> 
> All your condescending egomaniacal deflections, diversions, ad hominems, non sequitr, red herrings and the entire litany of fallacious argumentation cannot change the fact.
> 
> Speaking of Google, try "Federalist Papers".



FINALLY! An actual argument!

Appointees were beholden to and served the state legislatures in the past. It led to rampant corruption, the selling off of the senate seats to the highest bidder, usually buisiness. It took the power out of the hands of the people and placed it into the hands of the few with wealth.

Are you advocating for an American Plutocracy?


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> From Federalist #62:
> 
> 
> 
> II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. *It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Senate
> Independent Journal
> Wednesday, February 27, 1788
> [James Madison]*
> 
> I believe that you were sputtering some spittle about using Google?
Click to expand...


Original intent is a seperate argument. We can have that one too if you would like or would you rather stick to the single subject for now?


----------



## Oddball

No, it's not a separate argument..._*IT IS*_ the argument.

And given that federal spending and bureaucracy has mushroomed since the passage of the 17th Amendment -along with the 16th and the Fed- the circumstantial evidence is quite compelling that you haven't a leg to stand on.

But you go ahead and keep flailing away, Sir Black Knight.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4]Monty Python-The Black Knight - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> No, it's not a separate argument..._*IT IS*_ the argument.
> 
> And given that federal spending and bureaucracy has mushroomed since the passage of the 17th Amendment -along with the 16th and the Fed- the circumstantial evidence is quite compelling that you haven't a leg to stand on.
> 
> But you go ahead and keep flailing away, Sir Black Knight.
> 
> Monty Python-The Black Knight - YouTube




Original intent is an irrelevant point because it relys on a static unchangable Constitution.

 But the Constitution is NOT set in stone. It is a _living _document. The original intent of the Founders was that it could be changed by future generations when problems arose. Thats why they allowed for amendments in the first place. Had they disallowed amendments, then your point on original intent might be valid, but as you have yet to actually link the 17the amendment to the rise in government spending , you have not yet validated that point.

As far as the 17th amendment itself goes, problems arose and the Constitution was changed to deal with those problems, as allowed by the Constitution. It was proposed, it passed and then it was ratified by the states. All done within the parameters the Founder originally intended.


----------



## Oddball

What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.

The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.

By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal  one total debacle.


----------



## midcan5

As I understand it - or have read - the senate represents minority interests, it stands in the way of power solely functioning for the majority. If it were to go back to the states given the bird brains elected at the local level lord help us. Citizens united has compounded this problem as money now buys elections. Consider the 2010 election as the example of why future historians will consider the Robert's court one of the worst. Now we have a bunch of crazies wanting women back in the fifties, blocking all job bills that help America, and claiming the communists are everywhere. Damn is this nation getting dumber or what? 

"A final word on politics. As in economics nothing is certain save the certainty that there will be firm prediction by those who do not know. It is possible that in some election, near or far, a presidential candidate will emerge in the United States determined to draw into the campaign those not now impelled to vote.  Conceivably those so attracted - those who are not threatened by higher taxes and who are encouraged by the vision of a new governing community committed to the rescue of the cities and the impacted underclass - could outnumber those lost because of the resulting invasion of contentment.  If this happens the effort would succeed."  John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Culture of Contentment'


----------



## Vidi

Oddball said:


> What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.
> 
> The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.
> 
> By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal  one total debacle.



The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.

You are actually advocating for more corruption.


----------



## Navy1960

Madison also said in #62

II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the *convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion*. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems

So then if public opinion  i.e. 17th Amendment  favors  Direct election then that too is  in-line with the so called "original intent ".  If a new Amendment passes that returns  the  election of Senators back to the legislatures and  I say good luck with that one, as you would have to convince the American pulbic to give up the right to elect their own Senator in favor of someone they may or may not have voted for i.e. an agent, subject to corruption, your looking at a long  long battle.


----------



## Dante

the South lost this battle ages ago. give it up already!


----------



## Listening

Navy1960 said:


> Madison also said in #62
> 
> II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the *convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion*. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems
> 
> So then if public opinion  i.e. 17th Amendment  favors  Direct election then that too is  in-line with the so called "original intent ".  If a new Amendment passes that returns  the  election of Senators back to the legislatures and  I say good luck with that one, as you would have to convince the American pulbic to give up the right to elect their own Senator in favor of someone they may or may not have voted for i.e. an agent, subject to corruption, your looking at a long  long battle.



You are correct that it will be a long long battle.

But it can't be a battle all by itself.  It has to be fought in the context of getting people to think about their states more as their soveriegns than D.C.

In this regard, the senate is simply there to ensure that the votes they cast at the local level can't be overridden by the morons we send to D.C.

As an aside: the left keeps pointing to the super low approval ratings of congress....and yet they say this system is better ?  Haven't heard the explanation for that one yet.

If this were the case now, all the liberal factions of each state could be pushing a form of Romneycare at the state level.  Each state could tailor it to their specific interests or needs or not have it at all.  As it stands now, if Obamacare is squelched at the federal level, you are going to see it die for another 20 years.  Nobody wants to talk about it at the state level (and why that is I don't understand......Romney care is supposedly successful.....even though Tenncare sucks......but it is doing something for somebody.  Are liberals just to lazy to do one state at a time ?).

Giving up the right to elect your own senator does not sound as foreboding as giving up your citizenship in a state.  Most liberals seem to want to do away with states anyway so I guess it is easy to understand how this would work.  At that point, the meaning of the senators would go away.

Helk, maybe getting rid of the senate isn't such a bad idea.

BTW: Public Opinion is not opinion at all.  The public didn't vote on the measure....it was passed in the same way you senators were appointed.....by states making the call.  Most people have no clue about the structural function of senators.


----------



## Listening

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.
> 
> The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.
> 
> By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal  one total debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.
> 
> You are actually advocating for more corruption.
Click to expand...


Ah yes....except you folks keep griping about Citizens United.  It has taken the power of the voter and reduced it by a factor of 50.

Now, instead of the corruption you complain about at the local level....you just have companies buying votes at the federal level.  It is much more efficient for them.  They don't have to run so many disinformation campaigns.

In effect, you are playing right into their hands.


----------



## Navy1960

Listening said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Madison also said in #62
> 
> II. It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the *convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion*. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems
> 
> So then if public opinion  i.e. 17th Amendment  favors  Direct election then that too is  in-line with the so called "original intent ".  If a new Amendment passes that returns  the  election of Senators back to the legislatures and  I say good luck with that one, as you would have to convince the American pulbic to give up the right to elect their own Senator in favor of someone they may or may not have voted for i.e. an agent, subject to corruption, your looking at a long  long battle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are correct that it will be a long long battle.
> 
> But it can't be a battle all by itself.  It has to be fought in the context of getting people to think about their states more as their soveriegns than D.C.
> 
> In this regard, the senate is simply there to ensure that the votes they cast at the local level can't be overridden by the morons we send to D.C.
> 
> As an aside: the left keeps pointing to the super low approval ratings of congress....and yet they say this system is better ?  Haven't heard the explanation for that one yet.
> 
> If this were the case now, all the liberal factions of each state could be pushing a form of Romneycare at the state level.  Each state could tailor it to their specific interests or needs or not have it at all.  As it stands now, if Obamacare is squelched at the federal level, you are going to see it die for another 20 years.  Nobody wants to talk about it at the state level (and why that is I don't understand......Romney care is supposedly successful.....even though Tenncare sucks......but it is doing something for somebody.  Are liberals just to lazy to do one state at a time ?).
> 
> Giving up the right to elect your own senator does not sound as foreboding as giving up your citizenship in a state.  Most liberals seem to want to do away with states anyway so I guess it is easy to understand how this would work.  At that point, the meaning of the senators would go away.
> 
> Helk, maybe getting rid of the senate isn't such a bad idea.
> 
> BTW: Public Opinion is not opinion at all.  The public didn't vote on the measure....it was passed in the same way you senators were appointed.....by states making the call.  Most people have no clue about the structural function of senators.
Click to expand...


Now this is just my presonal opinion here  Listening, however, I do tend  think there would be a better chance of  reforming congress in general if it were not so career oriented.  In that it would be less subject to the whims and fancies of  K Street.  I see our President  constitutionally bound to a set number of years  he or she can be President,  so I cannot see why a constiutional Amendment  that would  do the same  for Senate members would not  hold true as well.  However, the biggest problem you would have there is those same Senators would then have to vote for that  Amendment, which is unlikely as they tend to be more interested in whats best for themselves  rather than whats best for those they serve.  This is not a partisan , or left or right thing, this applies to both side in an equal manner, for every John Murtha theres  a  Thad Cochran, so take your pick.  In the end the best thing to do is start with young people and actually educate them on our form of  Govt. and  perhaps in the end an informed and educated voting public will be less likely  to look at the party symbol next to the name and the  person running who would better represent them and the state they live in.


----------



## MuadDib

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.
> 
> The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.
> 
> By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal  one total debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.
> 
> You are actually advocating for more corruption.
Click to expand...


There is evidence of a negative effect. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 3 years.


----------



## JDzBrain

MuadDib said:


> There is evidence of a negative effect. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 3 years.


Yeah...but they did manage to do their part to pass Obamacare....an unconstitutional piece of brilliance which NO Senator would EVER have supported if they were actually accountable to the state they are from.  

By decoupling the Senators from the legislatures of the states they are from, there have been three very negative effects.   

First, it puts Senators at risk from the very same influences as the House of Representatives members who they are SUPPOSED to be ridding herd on.   In other words, their allegiance is now just as likely to be in Washington as it is the state they are from.

Second, state representatives are no longer held responsible for the actions of the Senator THEY send to Washington to look out for the interest of their home state.  So when they pass Obamacare, state repersentatives can just throw up their hands and say...hey, what the heck were they thinking...when in fact, they SHOULD be being held to account.  THAT little fact has lead to the third negative.

It DRAMATICALLY lowered voter turnouts and perceptions of the importance of off...non national year elections when most state representatives are chosen.   This means that only activist are likely to show up to vote.  NOT the rank and file of the state's population.  This has SCREWED the makeup of legislatures in this country.  It has allowed parties...over time and through gerrymandering of voting districts...to engineer the makeup of state legislators.  

An example of this is my home county.  After the last election cycle, there is not ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE in our county.  We are conservatives.  Yet our state representative is a flamin' freakin' liberal!  How did that happen?  Gerrymandering of voting district borders!  

In direct violation of our state Constitution I might add.  And it's happened because of the apathy generated for off year votes due to the 17th Amendment.

I would submit there has not been one single GOOD thing that has come from the 17th amendment...or ANY OTHER amendment after the original 10 amendments. NO GOOD has ever or will ever come from politicians who believe they were or are smarter than the founders and can make the Constitution "better" in ANY way by amending it!

Better by repealing amendments?  HELL yes!


----------



## Polk

MuadDib said:


> Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Hilarity ensues!



"Higher form" that is heavily skewed in the interest of backwaters.


----------



## Polk

Sallow said:


> Get rid of the Senate, altogether.
> 
> Really..why is it needed?



But otherwise the open land of Wyoming wouldn't get an equal voice. Why do you deny rocks their basic rights?


----------



## Avatar4321

Sallow said:


> Get rid of the Senate, altogether.
> 
> Really..why is it needed?



To give the States a voice and to allow the States to check the Federal Government to keep them from usurping power they didn't have.

You do realize that our Founders set up our government the way it was for very specific reasons, don't you?

As a mature citizen, don't you think it's your responsibility to find out what those reasons are?


----------



## del

yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.

only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.


----------



## MuadDib

del said:


> yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.
> 
> only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.



Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up. 

The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.


----------



## del

MuadDib said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.
> 
> only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.
> 
> The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...


hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit


----------



## Oddball

del said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.
> 
> only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.
> 
> The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
Click to expand...

How do mere years change the overall concept?


----------



## Avatar4321

del said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.
> 
> only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.
> 
> The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
Click to expand...


I dont see how time changes the necessity for checks and balances. 

And considering they still appoint judges....


----------



## JDzBrain

del said:


> yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.
> 
> only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.


I HOPE you are kidding Del, cause if ya ain't...that IS the DUMBest fuckin' thing I've ever seen expressed publicly.  

While I agree that the quality of state legislators had degraded over time.  I would remind ya that the same bunch of dumbasses that have been voting them into office, have voted a community organizer who has never held a public job in his entire life to be president of this country!

That is what I'm talking about.  The problem is NOT the legislators.  It's the fact that the 17th amendment was the biggest voter suppression scheme ever inflicted on this country and it was done by progressives who convinced an uninformed electorate that it enhanced democracy...even though we DON'T HAVE A DEMOCRACY!

In reality, it was a simple plan to keep voter turnout low in the off years so that special interest...such as the supporters of a progressive agenda....could organize turn out the vote groups and skew the results in their favor.

If you want to know if there was some agenda besides the best interest of America involved in the amending of our Constitution...just look at the year it was voted on and see if it was the year of a national election or an off year.  

By the way, Article V of the Constituion is the part about amending it.  The last phrase contains something that is EXTREMELY telling of what the founders thought the roll of the Senate was.  

"_Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; *and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate*._"

Just for the half whits out there who believe men with names like Washington, Madison, Jefferson and Franklin are idiots...I'll explain the part that's bolded in that phrase.  "_and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate_."  It says no STATE can be deprived of it's equal Suffrage...equal VOTE...in the senate.  Not that no Senators can be denied their vote, no STATE can be denied their vote.  Senators were viewed as the STATE'S voice in Washington and each STATE had an equal voice....2 Senators.  

Now had they intended for the Senate to be the same as the House of Representatives, don't you think that just MAYBE the guys who were smart enough to establish an entirely new form of government and the greatest country in the history of man using 4500 words...less words than are on this page of this thread...that they just MIGHT have realized they mentioned the Senate and not the House in that Article?

NOTHING in the Constitution was by accident.  It says what it means and means what is says and there ain't been 2 elected officials since the ratification of the Constitution who were smart enough to write a single amendment...little on 17 more!

Can you say anchor babies?  Freakin' morons!


----------



## Dante

Oddball said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.
> 
> The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do mere years change the overall concept?
Click to expand...


Concepts are human constructs and humans change. What a concept means -- it' interpretations and meanings, change.  Need examples? Try the concept of liberalism


----------



## MuadDib

Oddball said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.
> 
> The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do mere years change the overall concept?
Click to expand...


The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.


----------



## JDzBrain

MuadDib said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
> 
> 
> 
> How do mere years change the overall concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.
Click to expand...

Exactly and your state's interests are determined by who you elect as your state representative to the sate legislature.  THAT...is what was lost by the passing of the 17th amendment.  It decoupled the state's interest from state's representation in Congress!

By the way, concepts do NOT change with time.  Perceptions of it may change, but once an idea is conceived...it is out there FOREVER!


----------



## del

Avatar4321 said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.
> 
> The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dont see how time changes the necessity for checks and balances.
> 
> And considering they still appoint judges....
Click to expand...


maybe the state legislature appoints judges where you're from, but not here, and thank god for little favors.

and feel free to explain how appointed senators are more of a check and balance than elected ones.

i'll wait


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.
> 
> The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do mere years change the overall concept?
Click to expand...


well maybe 220 years ago state legislatures weren't filled with the kind of human refuse that they are now, and maybe it wasn't a good idea to begin with. 

if they thought they had everything right, they wouldn't have set up a procedure to amend it, would they?

these are not terrifically complicated *concepts*


----------



## JDzBrain

del said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont see how time changes the necessity for checks and balances.
> 
> And considering they still appoint judges....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe the state legislature appoints judges where you're from, but not here, and thank god for little favors.
> 
> and feel free to explain how appointed senators are more of a check and balance than elected ones.
> 
> i'll wait
Click to expand...

Uh...senators were NOT appointed....although they could have been since the manner of their choosing was left up to the STATE Legislature (the people's representatives) in the state they represent!  They were almost exclusively nominated and ELECTED by vote in the state legislatures in their home state.  But they could have been appointed by a committee within the legislatures of their home state...OR any number of other ways.  

As to HOW they are more of a check...you apparently didn't read my first post.  If they are elected in a general election...they are beholden to the people who FUND and support their elections.  THAT can be anyone from anywhere.  If they are sent by the legislators of their state...they are beholden to those who sent them who are in turn responsible to US...we the people for the votes of the Senators they send to Washington to represent us.  

Which also means WE are accountable for both of those groups and provided a huge incentive to get out and vote for our state representative since they would have a hand in choosing our Senator in Washington!

There was and ABSOLUTE logic behind why the founders set it up that way...and it was a mistake to change it.  It has ABSOLUTELY led to the insanity we have in congress right now.  And given that at least 38 states...that would be 72 senators are red states right now....Obamacare would NEVER HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY had the government worked the way it was suppose to!

THAT is what scares the HELL out of progressives about this whole discussion!


----------



## JDzBrain

del said:


> well maybe 220 years ago state legislatures weren't filled with the kind of human refuse that they are now, and maybe it wasn't a good idea to begin with.
> 
> if they thought they had everything right, they wouldn't have set up a procedure to amend it, would they?
> 
> these are not terrifically complicated *concepts*



Have you read the first 10 amendments?  The amendment process was put in place so that RIGHTS could be further defined or protected...IF NECESSARY.  

It was NOT intended to be used to dismantle the original Constitution!

It was intended as an addition process...NOT a subtraction process.


----------



## del

JDzBrain said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> well maybe 220 years ago state legislatures weren't filled with the kind of human refuse that they are now, and maybe it wasn't a good idea to begin with.
> 
> if they thought they had everything right, they wouldn't have set up a procedure to amend it, would they?
> 
> these are not terrifically complicated *concepts*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the first 10 amendments?  The amendment process was put in place so that RIGHTS could be further defined or protected...IF NECESSARY.
> 
> It was NOT intended to be used to dismantle the original Constitution!
> 
> It was intended as an addition process...NOT a subtraction process.
Click to expand...




> amend·ment noun \&#601;-&#712;men(d)-m&#601;nt\
> 
> Definition of AMENDMENT
> 
> 1
> : *the act of amending* : correction
> 2
> : a material (as compost or sand) that aids plant growth indirectly by improving the condition of the soil
> 3
> a : the process of amending by parliamentary or constitutional procedure
> b : an alteration proposed or effected by this process <a constitutional amendment>





> amend verb \&#601;-&#712;mend\
> transitive verb
> 1
> : *to put right*; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
> 2
> a : *to change or modify for the better* : improve <amend the situation>
> b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend a constitution>
> intransitive verb
> : to reform oneself
>  amend·able \-&#712;men-d&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective
>  amend·er noun




words have meanings, skippy, no matter how much you don't like it.


----------



## MuadDib

del said:


> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> well maybe 220 years ago state legislatures weren't filled with the kind of human refuse that they are now, and maybe it wasn't a good idea to begin with.
> 
> if they thought they had everything right, they wouldn't have set up a procedure to amend it, would they?
> 
> these are not terrifically complicated *concepts*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you read the first 10 amendments?  The amendment process was put in place so that RIGHTS could be further defined or protected...IF NECESSARY.
> 
> It was NOT intended to be used to dismantle the original Constitution!
> 
> It was intended as an addition process...NOT a subtraction process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amend·ment noun \&#601;-&#712;men(d)-m&#601;nt\
> 
> Definition of AMENDMENT
> 
> 1
> : *the act of amending* : correction
> 2
> : a material (as compost or sand) that aids plant growth indirectly by improving the condition of the soil
> 3
> a : the process of amending by parliamentary or constitutional procedure
> b : an alteration proposed or effected by this process <a constitutional amendment>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amend verb \&#601;-&#712;mend\
> transitive verb
> 1
> : *to put right*; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
> 2
> a : *to change or modify for the better* : improve <amend the situation>
> b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend a constitution>
> intransitive verb
> : to reform oneself
>  amend·able \-&#712;men-d&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective
>  amend·er noun
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> words have meanings, skippy, no matter how much you don't like it.
Click to expand...


Then you'd better read what JDz said because he is correct. The amendment process was never intended to change the basic structure of the Federal government. Freeing slaves? Yes. Women's suffrage? Yes. Defining citizenship? Yes, even though they did a horrible job of it. And that abomination of Prohibition should never have been a constitutional amendment.


----------



## Oddball

del said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont see how time changes the necessity for checks and balances.
> 
> And considering they still appoint judges....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe the state legislature appoints judges where you're from, but not here, and thank god for little favors.
> 
> and feel free to explain how appointed senators are more of a check and balance than elected ones.
> 
> i'll wait
Click to expand...

Because Senators then have to answer to the people you elected at a state level as to why they rubber stamp the stupid shit that the federal HoR passes....This tends to keep people engaged at the state and local levels, rather than just strolling into the polls every few years acting like they've done anything of substance.

Also, since federal taxes were apportioned to the states for collection (and some of them still are),  it then fell upon state agencies to collect their share of the federal tax bill....If the federal Seante rubber stamped a tax increase or regulatory burden, they'd have some 'splaining to do rather than just playing along with the party and running for re-re-re-re-re-re-election again.

What is it about making Senators a basically elected imperial class that is attractive to you?


----------



## Oddball

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
> 
> 
> 
> How do mere years change the overall concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well maybe 220 years ago state legislatures weren't filled with the kind of human refuse that they are now, and maybe it wasn't a good idea to begin with.
> 
> if they thought they had everything right, they wouldn't have set up a procedure to amend it, would they?
> 
> these are not terrifically complicated *concepts*
Click to expand...

You think that all the changes to the original republic and the halls of congress being filled with human refuse are unrelated?

Please see: Why the Worst Get on Top: http://jim.com/hayek.htm


----------



## The T

MuadDib said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
> 
> 
> 
> How do mere years change the overall concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state* and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. *The House of Representatives represents your interests*.
Click to expand...

 

And the progressives with Wilson fucked it up by DESIGN.


----------



## MuadDib

The T said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do mere years change the overall concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state* and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. *The House of Representatives represents your interests*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the progressives with Wilson fucked it up by DESIGN.
Click to expand...


And now we have have hacks like Harry Reid instead of true statesmen. The senators pre-1910 were statesmen. They were known by the people and by the legislatures, and represented the interests and wishes of their respective states.


----------



## Polk

MuadDib said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.
> 
> only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.
> 
> The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.
Click to expand...


I think the Framers made a necessary concession to get the deal done.


----------



## Polk

MuadDib said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> hello?
> 
> it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator
> 
> times change, fuckwit
> 
> 
> 
> How do mere years change the overall concept?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.
Click to expand...


But what is the state if not a collective embodiment of its residents?


----------



## MuadDib

Polk said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do mere years change the overall concept?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But what is the state if not a collective embodiment of its residents?
Click to expand...


The interests of the state as a collective may be different than the interests of the individuals.

For example, in the current fiscal dilemma, the Senate might not have such a hard time passing a budget, which is one of the most basic functions of the legislature, if it were not for the political issues involved with Senators worrying about popular reelection.


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dont see how time changes the necessity for checks and balances.
> 
> And considering they still appoint judges....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> maybe the state legislature appoints judges where you're from, but not here, and thank god for little favors.
> 
> and feel free to explain how appointed senators are more of a check and balance than elected ones.
> 
> i'll wait
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because Senators then have to answer to the people you elected at a state level as to why they rubber stamp the stupid shit that the federal HoR passes....This tends to keep people engaged at the state and local levels, rather than just strolling into the polls every few years acting like they've done anything of substance.
> 
> Also, since federal taxes were apportioned to the states for collection (and some of them still are),  it then fell upon state agencies to collect their share of the federal tax bill....If the federal Seante rubber stamped a tax increase or regulatory burden, they'd have some 'splaining to do rather than just playing along with the party and running for re-re-re-re-re-re-election again.
> 
> What is it about making Senators a basically elected imperial class that is attractive to you?
Click to expand...


nothing. what is it about making state legislators king makers that you think is any better? 

wake up and smell the coffee.


----------



## Oddball

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe the state legislature appoints judges where you're from, but not here, and thank god for little favors.
> 
> and feel free to explain how appointed senators are more of a check and balance than elected ones.
> 
> i'll wait
> 
> 
> 
> Because Senators then have to answer to the people you elected at a state level as to why they rubber stamp the stupid shit that the federal HoR passes....This tends to keep people engaged at the state and local levels, rather than just strolling into the polls every few years acting like they've done anything of substance.
> 
> Also, since federal taxes were apportioned to the states for collection (and some of them still are),  it then fell upon state agencies to collect their share of the federal tax bill....If the federal Seante rubber stamped a tax increase or regulatory burden, they'd have some 'splaining to do rather than just playing along with the party and running for re-re-re-re-re-re-election again.
> 
> What is it about making Senators a basically elected imperial class that is attractive to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nothing. what is it about making state legislators king makers that you think is any better?
> 
> wake up and smell the coffee.
Click to expand...

Senators aren't kings....And they'd be less so were they subject to the approval of the state houses -which turn over very regularly- rather than being basically elected for life, or retirement, whichever comes first.

The guy who needs a whiff of the java is you.


----------



## Polk

MuadDib said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what is the state if not a collective embodiment of its residents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interests of the state as a collective may be different than the interests of the individuals.
> 
> For example, in the current fiscal dilemma, the Senate might not have such a hard time passing a budget, which is one of the most basic functions of the legislature, if it were not for the political issues involved with Senators worrying about popular reelection.
Click to expand...


The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.


----------



## freedombecki

MuadDib said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what is the state if not a collective embodiment of its residents?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The interests of the state as a collective may be different than the interests of the individuals.
> 
> For example, in the current fiscal dilemma, the Senate might not have such a hard time passing a budget, which is one of the most basic functions of the legislature, if it were not for the political issues involved with Senators worrying about popular reelection.
Click to expand...

You're right. When I was growing up, we never had an instance of an elected representative screaming at other U.S. Representatives like a Tasmanian Devil. (i.e., Anthony Weiner's screaming diatribes) I did see on television some legislative-type Russians engaging in fisticuffs in their Duma back in the 60s(?) It didn't seem right, as our American history classes mentioned the courtesy of elected representatives and especially Senators, so it never occurred to me anyone in the world would come to blows in the House or Senate due to rules of censure that were then exercised. I can see how something is missing without State legislatures being represented in Congress and having a say in final outcomes as the Senate does. States lost power with the amendment, it would seem to me. 

Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe the old way wasn't so bad, even if some objected. Chaos is not better than old school Senators passing a budget and assuming the well-trained Oval Office would pay attention to its expense accounts.


----------



## freedombecki

Polk said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what is the state if not a collective embodiment of its residents?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The interests of the state as a collective may be different than the interests of the individuals.
> 
> For example, in the current fiscal dilemma, the Senate might not have such a hard time passing a budget, which is one of the most basic functions of the legislature, if it were not for the political issues involved with Senators worrying about popular reelection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.
Click to expand...

Well, those darn House Republicans. They're so close-minded their brains don't spill out all over the floor.


----------



## Dante

JDzBrain said:


> By the way, concepts do NOT change with time.  Perceptions of it may change, but once an idea is conceived...it is out there FOREVER!



Over time, the concept of 'freedom' has come to mean different things to different people. I will go out on a limb as say in our lifetime the understanding and perception of the concept has changed


----------



## Oddball

Polk said:


> The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.


Spending bills are supposed to originate in the HoR...WTF is anyone doing floating a budget bill in the Senate?


----------



## Dante

Oddball said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.
> 
> 
> 
> Spending bills are supposed to originate in the HoR...WTF is anyone doing floating a budget bill in the Senate?
Click to expand...


PolitiFact Ohio | John Boehner says Senate Dems haven't passed a budget in more than 1,000 days

context is important


----------



## Oddball

So, Boehner is a stupid douchebag...What else is new?


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.
> 
> 
> 
> Spending bills are supposed to originate in the HoR...WTF is anyone doing floating a budget bill in the Senate?
Click to expand...


----------



## Oddball

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.
> 
> 
> 
> Spending bills are supposed to originate in the HoR...WTF is anyone doing floating a budget bill in the Senate?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know...Just a fucking piece of paper.


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spending bills are supposed to originate in the HoR...WTF is anyone doing floating a budget bill in the Senate?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I know...Just a fucking piece of paper.
Click to expand...


Kids in the House - Grade School - How a Bill Becomes a Law

How a Bill Becomes a Law &mdash; FactMonster.com

edumicate yourself, buckwheat

or you could just call me a fabian socialist, statist motherfucker and declare victory.


----------



## Oddball

OK...Fine....It's taxing bills that are supposed to start in the HoR...My mistake.

Now, maybe you can 'splain why all of the proposed budget bills by Boiking haven't manged to even get any *DEMOCRAT* votes in the Senate.

That's some kind of republican obstructionism!


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> OK...Fine....It's taxing bills that are supposed to start in the HoR...My mistake.
> 
> Now, maybe you can 'splain why all of the proposed budget bills by Boiking haven't manged to even get any *DEMOCRAT* votes in the Senate.
> 
> That's some kind of republican obstructionism!



um, because they suck?

it's a little far afield from repealing the 17th, innit?


----------



## Oddball

Yes, yes it is...But I didn't bring up the subject.


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> Yes, yes it is...But I didn't bring up the subject.



neither did i.

carry on


----------



## freedombecki

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK...Fine....It's taxing bills that are supposed to start in the HoR...My mistake.
> 
> Now, maybe you can 'splain why all of the proposed budget bills by Boiking haven't manged to even get any *DEMOCRAT* votes in the Senate.
> 
> That's some kind of republican obstructionism!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um, because they suck?
> 
> it's a little far afield from repealing the 17th, innit?
Click to expand...

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the Senate Majority Leader believed in  fiscal restraint. 

We have a President who doesn't know the difference between a million, a billion, and a trillion if they are not in numerical order. Nobody is going to own a budget that has no restraint placed on the White House's 9,851 czars, one for every specialty tit fighter on the DNC payoff list.


----------



## bobgnote

*ABOLISH the Senate.  What are we, Romans off some tri-ream?*

23 pages, somebody go for abolition.  C'mon Americans.  Stop the circle-jerkers.

Do we have to appoint Howard Stern temporary dictator?


----------



## bayoubill

MuadDib said:


> Repeal the 17th Amendment!



meh... I'm a gun nut... I can't count past the number two...


----------



## Oddball

Yeah....I already corrected myself on that one.

Try and keep up.


----------



## Polk

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK...Fine....It's taxing bills that are supposed to start in the HoR...My mistake.
> 
> Now, maybe you can 'splain why all of the proposed budget bills by Boiking haven't manged to even get any *DEMOCRAT* votes in the Senate.
> 
> That's some kind of republican obstructionism!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um, because they suck?
> 
> it's a little far afield from repealing the 17th, innit?
Click to expand...


It's actually because most of them have been superseded by alternative proposals in the long journey from delivery to actual time to vote of them (if you notice, it's always the Republicans that are putting the original drafts on the calendar).


----------



## Polk

Oddball said:


> Yeah....I already corrected myself on that one.
> 
> Try and keep up.



I responded to the post before I saw your later post. I respond to things as I'm going down through the thread.


----------



## Oddball

Polk said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK...Fine....It's taxing bills that are supposed to start in the HoR...My mistake.
> 
> Now, maybe you can 'splain why all of the proposed budget bills by Boiking haven't manged to even get any *DEMOCRAT* votes in the Senate.
> 
> That's some kind of republican obstructionism!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> um, because they suck?
> 
> it's a little far afield from repealing the 17th, innit?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's actually because most of them have been superseded by alternative proposals in the long journey from delivery to actual time to vote of them (if you notice, it's always the Republicans that are putting the original drafts on the calendar).
Click to expand...

Um...I don't know how to break this to you....But Harry Reid controls what gets on the calendar and what doesn't.

We're still not anywhere near discussing the 17th, though.


----------



## Polk

Oddball said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> um, because they suck?
> 
> it's a little far afield from repealing the 17th, innit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually because most of them have been superseded by alternative proposals in the long journey from delivery to actual time to vote of them (if you notice, it's always the Republicans that are putting the original drafts on the calendar).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um...I don't know how to break this to you....But Harry Reid controls what gets on the calendar and what doesn't.
> 
> We're still not anywhere near discussing the 17th, though.
Click to expand...


False. While the Speaker of the House has supreme control over the calendar, the Senate doesn't function in the same manner.


----------



## Oddball

Polk said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually because most of them have been superseded by alternative proposals in the long journey from delivery to actual time to vote of them (if you notice, it's always the Republicans that are putting the original drafts on the calendar).
> 
> 
> 
> Um...I don't know how to break this to you....But Harry Reid controls what gets on the calendar and what doesn't.
> 
> We're still not anywhere near discussing the 17th, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False. While the Speaker of the House has supreme control over the calendar, the Senate doesn't function in the same manner.
Click to expand...

Then why haven't any of the bills passed by the HoR since the repubs took over not seen the light of day?...Care to 'splain that one away?


----------



## Polk

Oddball said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um...I don't know how to break this to you....But Harry Reid controls what gets on the calendar and what doesn't.
> 
> We're still not anywhere near discussing the 17th, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. While the Speaker of the House has supreme control over the calendar, the Senate doesn't function in the same manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why haven't any of the bills passed by the HoR since the repubs took over not seen the light of day?...Care to 'splain that one away?
Click to expand...


Honestly, I'm not sure. Holds, perhaps? Think through this question logically for a second. Why would Reid schedule a vote on a proposal that he knows will get no Democratic votes?


----------



## Oddball

"I don't know", honest as it may be,  but doesn't answer the question.


----------



## Polk

Oddball said:


> "I don't know", honest as it may be,  but doesn't answer the question.



Since I didn't know the answer to your question off the top of head, I took the time to research it (took me a few minutes because I had to find the bill number). The answer is that the bill was voted on the Senate. 

The House passed their budget on March 29th.

House passes GOP budget - CNN

The Senate voted on it May 16th, with rejecting it 41-58.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote


----------



## freedombecki

Polk said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I don't know", honest as it may be,  but doesn't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since I didn't know the answer to your question off the top of head, I took the time to research it (took me a few minutes because I had to find the bill number). The answer is that the bill was voted on the Senate.
> 
> The House passed their budget on March 29th.
> 
> House passes GOP budget - CNN
> 
> The Senate voted on it May 16th, with rejecting it 41-58.
> 
> U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote
Click to expand...

Harry Reid's parsing the system worked to make nothing happen. 

His marching orders are attached to a carte blanche Treasury open 24-hours to the executive suite.

The 17th Amendment has gotta go.


----------



## bayoubill

Oddball said:


> Yeah....I already corrected myself on that one.
> 
> Try and keep up.



I'm a disappointment to everyone around me...


----------



## freedombecki

Getting back to the subject, of all the things that have been discussed here, I think I really like what the Coalition to Repeal the 17th Amendment argues:

*T*he founders  created the Senate to be the legislative body that represented the states,  while the House of Representatives   represented the people.  These two bodies were designed to
 provide  checks and balances between the  legislative branch and the executive  branch _while_  also providing checks and balances between the federal government and the  states.
 The same progressive philosophy that prevailed during the  Wilson era, that produced the Income Tax Amendment and the Federal  Reserve, also produced the 17th Amendment in
 1913. This Amendment took from  the state legislatures the  right to choose their two Senators, and let the people of the state choose  their Senators in a state-wide election.
 What's wrong with the people choosing their own Senators?  For starters, this amendment strips power from the states, which ultimately  strengthens the federal government.  This Amendment  removes an  important check and balance between the federal government and the states. This  Amendment completely removes the states from participation in the:


approval of federal legislation;
approval of executive appointments for cabinet positions and federal judges;
ratification of international treaties; and
judgment in all matters of impeachment.
    Moreover, state-wide election of Senators seriously reduces  the accountability Senators have to their constituents.  Representatives  are accountable to the people in their District; Senators have a much larger  pool of voters to woo, and can afford to offend far more people than can  Representatives.  And they do!  


​The founders set up an alliance of states, not a removal of states. What have we done?


----------



## Oddball

freedombecki said:


> The founders set up an alliance of states, not a removal of states. What have we done?



We've created a bicameral federal mobocracy.


----------



## freedombecki

Oddball said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders set up an alliance of states, not a removal of states. What have we done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've created a bicameral federal mobocracy.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be truer, Mr. Oddball.

It's too bad our elect lack cohesion to declare war on the national debt, and that it all gets left to conservatives who can't win elections with constant eleventh hour calumny against those with the best records of no spending in their respective state's legislative groups. It takes 6 months to disprove some allegations. By that time, the election is over and the liar is already spending his expense account as well as the national debt into the ground.


----------



## MuadDib

Oddball said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um...I don't know how to break this to you....But Harry Reid controls what gets on the calendar and what doesn't.
> 
> We're still not anywhere near discussing the 17th, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False. While the Speaker of the House has supreme control over the calendar, the Senate doesn't function in the same manner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why haven't any of the bills passed by the HoR since the repubs took over not seen the light of day?...Care to 'splain that one away?
Click to expand...


Because Harry Reid doesn't have the balls to make the hard calls.


----------



## MuadDib

freedombecki said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> The founders set up an alliance of states, not a removal of states. What have we done?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've created a bicameral federal mobocracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't be truer, Mr. Oddball.
> 
> It's too bad our elect lack cohesion to declare war on the national debt, and that it all gets left to conservatives who can't win elections with constant eleventh hour calumny against those with the best records of no spending in their respective state's legislative groups. It takes 6 months to disprove some allegations. By that time, the election is over and the liar is already spending his expense account as well as the national debt into the ground.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I'd want them to. Every time the Feds declare war on a social problem, they make a mess of it. They declared war on poverty and now we have more poor people who are dependent on a gubmint check and breaking the country's financial back. They declared war on drugs and took what was essentially a non-issue, and made a train wreck of it. Now we have more drugs, worse drugs, and worse drug related crime than ever.


----------



## Polk

MuadDib said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. While the Speaker of the House has supreme control over the calendar, the Senate doesn't function in the same manner.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why haven't any of the bills passed by the HoR since the repubs took over not seen the light of day?...Care to 'splain that one away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because Harry Reid doesn't have the balls to make the hard calls.
Click to expand...


The Senate has already voted on, and rejected, the House's budget proposal.


----------



## MuadDib

Polk said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why haven't any of the bills passed by the HoR since the repubs took over not seen the light of day?...Care to 'splain that one away?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Harry Reid doesn't have the balls to make the hard calls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate has already voted on, and rejected, the House's budget proposal.
Click to expand...


Meanwhile, we haven't had a budget passed in 3 years, no balanced budget, no pay back of the crushing debt, $15 trillion in debt and rising, and continuing resolutions that don't address or fix the problem.


----------



## Polk

MuadDib said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Harry Reid doesn't have the balls to make the hard calls.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate has already voted on, and rejected, the House's budget proposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, we haven't had a budget passed in 3 years, no balanced budget, no pay back of the crushing debt, $15 trillion in debt and rising, and continuing resolutions that don't address or fix the problem.
Click to expand...


So, a pox on everyone's house, in that case? Since the Republicans haven't proposed any plan to balance the budget (Romney's plan leaves a deficit of around 800 billion a year, and the Ryan plan doesn't balance the budget until 30 years out (and even that's built on a lot of bullshit claims)).


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> So, a pox on everyone's house, in that case? Since the Republicans haven't proposed any plan to balance the budget (Romney's plan leaves a deficit of around 800 billion a year, and the Ryan plan doesn't balance the budget until 30 years out (and even that's built on a lot of bullshit claims)).



The American people are trapped between two warring armies, both bent on only destroying the other at any cost, including that of the Republic.


----------



## Oddball

STFU, drive-by dickweed.


----------



## Polk

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> So, a pox on everyone's house, in that case? Since the Republicans haven't proposed any plan to balance the budget (Romney's plan leaves a deficit of around 800 billion a year, and the Ryan plan doesn't balance the budget until 30 years out (and even that's built on a lot of bullshit claims)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American people are trapped between two warring armies, both bent on only destroying the other at any cost, including that of the Republic.
Click to expand...


That's the result of scarcity. As it becomes harder to expand the pie, expect even more fighting over how to divide the pie that's left.


----------



## freedombecki

MuadDib said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've created a bicameral federal mobocracy.
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't be truer, Mr. Oddball.
> 
> It's too bad our elect lack cohesion to declare war on the national debt, and that it all gets left to conservatives who can't win elections with constant eleventh hour calumny against those with the best records of no spending in their respective state's legislative groups. It takes 6 months to disprove some allegations. By that time, the election is over and the liar is already spending his expense account as well as the national debt into the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I'd want them to. Every time the Feds declare war on a social problem, they make a mess of it. They declared war on poverty and now we have more poor people who are dependent on a gubmint check and breaking the country's financial back. They declared war on drugs and took what was essentially a non-issue, and made a train wreck of it. Now we have more drugs, worse drugs, and worse drug related crime than ever.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't support spending every cent in sight of somebody else's money. Declaring war on a debt is not the same as declaring war on poverty or drugs, both of which have emotional ties. Money, you either save or spend. If you spend too much, no vacation. If the government spends too much, it prints more and devalues money that those who saved theirs have.

I do support a war on debt to get it off the plate. It's a foul ball. It's a penalty box. And it's not something I care to leave to my sister's and brother's grandchildren.

I have a better life as an adult than as a child. I think America is the best place on earth to be. I just do, and I pray every night for those in our government who try to keep a lid on spending, who try to maintain a healthy business climate for families raising children and trying to own a piece of the American pie.

And I hope the post Obama Congress will repeal the 17th Amendment and call for more involvement of states in their choices for Senators.

Let today's unfriendly climate in the Senate be our charter for restoring the founder's plan of keeping states engaged in the Republic, and as Oddball pointed out, it's a mobocracy. I think this has  led to this unbusinesslike climate in our Unite States government of a massive free-for-all in spending.

Let's chuck it and give Senators back to accounting to their state legislatures again.

And let's make sure they do not devolve to the problems they had that caused the 17th Amendment to be passed and tucked out of people's notice for years while states lost power.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Polk said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, a pox on everyone's house, in that case? Since the Republicans haven't proposed any plan to balance the budget (Romney's plan leaves a deficit of around 800 billion a year, and the Ryan plan doesn't balance the budget until 30 years out (and even that's built on a lot of bullshit claims)).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American people are trapped between two warring armies, both bent on only destroying the other at any cost, including that of the Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the result of scarcity. As it becomes harder to expand the pie, expect even more fighting over how to divide the pie that's left.
Click to expand...


Neither side has any idea as to what to do, and theres actually nothing either side can do.


----------



## Texanmike

Vidi said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.
> 
> The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.
> 
> By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal  one total debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.
> 
> You are actually advocating for more corruption.
Click to expand...


What leads you to believe that the federal government is any less corrupt than any other level of the government.  The problem was that people did not watch the state governments, not that they are any more inherently corrupt than any other level of government.  

How has the Senate being popularly elected increased the power of the voter?  It has actually had the exact opposite effect. Now instead of having to face the voters every 2 years, a senator only has to face the voter ever six.  On top of that there are some Senators who represent as many as 17 million people. If you don't want to repeal the 17th amendment then just abolish the senate.

Mike


----------



## Texanmike

If you want to solve the debt problem then there is one simple solution.  Cut all government outlays by 30% across the board.  Walk into each department head's office on monday and announce "You have 30% less to work with than you did friday. Have a good week".

You're not going to cut the debt by "debating what to cut, you're not going to cut the debt by making backroom deals... just cut it by a set percentage.

Mike


----------



## Polk

Texanmike said:


> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.
> 
> The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.
> 
> By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal  one total debacle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.
> 
> You are actually advocating for more corruption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What leads you to believe that the federal government is any less corrupt than any other level of the government.  The problem was that people did not watch the state governments, not that they are any more inherently corrupt than any other level of government.
> 
> How has the Senate being popularly elected increased the power of the voter?  It has actually had the exact opposite effect. Now instead of having to face the voters every 2 years, a senator only has to face the voter ever six.  On top of that there are some Senators who represent as many as 17 million people. If you don't want to repeal the 17th amendment then just abolish the senate.
> 
> Mike
Click to expand...


How do you figure repealing the 17th Amendment would make senators face voters more often? Beyond the obvious (that they'll never face voters), once a senator is elected, they are in office for the full term. A change in the state legislature doesn't change that.

As for the population skew issue, that is an ethical problem in either scenario. I'm all for abolishing the Senate (or at the very least, changing the structure to make it more representative of the population).


----------



## Polk

Texanmike said:


> If you want to solve the debt problem then there is one simple solution.  Cut all government outlays by 30% across the board.  Walk into each department head's office on monday and announce "You have 30% less to work with than you did friday. Have a good week".
> 
> You're not going to cut the debt by "debating what to cut, you're not going to cut the debt by making backroom deals... just cut it by a set percentage.
> 
> Mike



And when you do this, you'll have a horde of angry seniors sacking the Capitol demanding their Social Security checks and Medicare be paid in full. Oh, and you'd still have a 200 billion dollar deficit.


----------



## Polk

Oddball said:


> OK...Fine....It's taxing bills that are supposed to start in the HoR...My mistake.
> 
> Now, maybe you can 'splain why all of the proposed budget bills by Boiking haven't manged to even get any *DEMOCRAT* votes in the Senate.
> 
> That's some kind of republican obstructionism!



Turns out there's another reason: they've never actually voted on them. They've voted on bills introduced by the Republicans titled "The Obama Budget", where they just write down the topline numbers for every agency out of the budget request, then leave all the details blank.

House and Senate Unanimously Reject Obama Budgets &#8212; Or Do They? - ABC News


----------



## JakeStarkey

MuadDib said:


> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.. .



Then get a super majority and amend the Constitution.


----------



## MuadDib

freedombecki said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't be truer, Mr. Oddball.
> 
> It's too bad our elect lack cohesion to declare war on the national debt, and that it all gets left to conservatives who can't win elections with constant eleventh hour calumny against those with the best records of no spending in their respective state's legislative groups. It takes 6 months to disprove some allegations. By that time, the election is over and the liar is already spending his expense account as well as the national debt into the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I'd want them to. Every time the Feds declare war on a social problem, they make a mess of it. They declared war on poverty and now we have more poor people who are dependent on a gubmint check and breaking the country's financial back. They declared war on drugs and took what was essentially a non-issue, and made a train wreck of it. Now we have more drugs, worse drugs, and worse drug related crime than ever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, I don't support spending every cent in sight of somebody else's money. Declaring war on a debt is not the same as declaring war on poverty or drugs, both of which have emotional ties. Money, you either save or spend. If you spend too much, no vacation. If the government spends too much, it prints more and devalues money that those who saved theirs have.
> 
> I do support a war on debt to get it off the plate. It's a foul ball. It's a penalty box. And it's not something I care to leave to my sister's and brother's grandchildren.
> 
> I have a better life as an adult than as a child. I think America is the best place on earth to be. I just do, and I pray every night for those in our government who try to keep a lid on spending, who try to maintain a healthy business climate for families raising children and trying to own a piece of the American pie.
> 
> And I hope the post Obama Congress will repeal the 17th Amendment and call for more involvement of states in their choices for Senators.
> 
> Let today's unfriendly climate in the Senate be our charter for restoring the founder's plan of keeping states engaged in the Republic, and as Oddball pointed out, it's a mobocracy. I think this has  led to this unbusinesslike climate in our Unite States government of a massive free-for-all in spending.
> 
> Let's chuck it and give Senators back to accounting to their state legislatures again.
> 
> And let's make sure they do not devolve to the problems they had that caused the 17th Amendment to be passed and tucked out of people's notice for years while states lost power.
Click to expand...


Oh, I agree with your sentiment. I'm just saying that the Feds have a bad track record when they declare "war" on something. They generally fuck it up and cutting the deficit and paying off the debt is something that is going to have to be done and done right.


----------



## MuadDib

Polk said:


> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vidi said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.
> 
> You are actually advocating for more corruption.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What leads you to believe that the federal government is any less corrupt than any other level of the government.  The problem was that people did not watch the state governments, not that they are any more inherently corrupt than any other level of government.
> 
> How has the Senate being popularly elected increased the power of the voter?  It has actually had the exact opposite effect. Now instead of having to face the voters every 2 years, a senator only has to face the voter ever six.  On top of that there are some Senators who represent as many as 17 million people. If you don't want to repeal the 17th amendment then just abolish the senate.
> 
> Mike
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you figure repealing the 17th Amendment would make senators face voters more often? Beyond the obvious (that they'll never face voters), once a senator is elected, they are in office for the full term. A change in the state legislature doesn't change that.
> 
> As for the population skew issue, that is an ethical problem in either scenario. I'm all for abolishing the Senate (or at the very least, changing the structure to make it more representative of the population).
Click to expand...


You're a damned fool if you think that abolishing the Senate is going to solve anything. The Senate serves as a check and balance on the power of the House. 

The problem is that the 17th Amendment changed the nature of the Senate so that it does not function as it was designed or intended.


----------



## Old Rocks

MuadDib said:


> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.
> 
> According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *chosen by the Legislature thereof*, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, US Senators were not elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives were elected by the people to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was *appointed by the state legislatures* to represent the inerests of the states.  That kept senators out of the political process.
> 
> That was changed 1910 by the progressives when they changed that with the 17th Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *elected by the people thereof, for six years*; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
> 
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Hilarity ensues!
Click to expand...


Sure, let's get it back to the state legislatures, bought and owned by people like the Koch Brothers. So all you Koch suckers can delight in living in an oligarchy.


----------



## Old Rocks

MuadDib said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> What leads you to believe that the federal government is any less corrupt than any other level of the government.  The problem was that people did not watch the state governments, not that they are any more inherently corrupt than any other level of government.
> 
> How has the Senate being popularly elected increased the power of the voter?  It has actually had the exact opposite effect. Now instead of having to face the voters every 2 years, a senator only has to face the voter ever six.  On top of that there are some Senators who represent as many as 17 million people. If you don't want to repeal the 17th amendment then just abolish the senate.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure repealing the 17th Amendment would make senators face voters more often? Beyond the obvious (that they'll never face voters), once a senator is elected, they are in office for the full term. A change in the state legislature doesn't change that.
> 
> As for the population skew issue, that is an ethical problem in either scenario. I'm all for abolishing the Senate (or at the very least, changing the structure to make it more representative of the population).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a damned fool if you think that abolishing the Senate is going to solve anything. The Senate serves as a check and balance on the power of the House.
> 
> The problem is that the 17th Amendment changed the nature of the Senate so that it does not function as it was designed or intended.
Click to expand...


The reason for the 17th Amendment was that the Senate was not functioning as it was intended. The very wealthy were buying Senate seats via the state legislatures. What broke that camels back was a senator from Montana who made it so obvious that the Senate was shamed into refusing to seat him.


----------



## Tsalagi

MuadDib said:


> You're a damned fool if you think that abolishing the Senate is going to solve anything. The Senate serves as a check and balance on the power of the House.
> 
> The problem is that the 17th Amendment changed the nature of the Senate so that it does not function as it was designed or intended.


Just a small question. How WAS the Senate designed? What was really intended?
We had bee a colony with no voice, then wallowed for several years as a Confederation, then got our "Divinely inspired" Constitution.

What was the model? Were we able to examine past failures and successes? Could we tweak something and get it to work better? Where was this form of governance being operated?

What was REALLY intended? Were they that attuned to the crystal ball of needs 225 years in the future? Or were they simply wise for their generation, attempting to end the stalemate of the Confederation government, and willing to experiment with a new model? Only Gods could have made perfection. They were NOT Gods.


----------



## freedombecki

MuadDib said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I'd want them to. Every time the Feds declare war on a social problem, they make a mess of it. They declared war on poverty and now we have more poor people who are dependent on a gubmint check and breaking the country's financial back. They declared war on drugs and took what was essentially a non-issue, and made a train wreck of it. Now we have more drugs, worse drugs, and worse drug related crime than ever.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I don't support spending every cent in sight of somebody else's money. Declaring war on a debt is not the same as declaring war on poverty or drugs, both of which have emotional ties. Money, you either save or spend. If you spend too much, no vacation. If the government spends too much, it prints more and devalues money that those who saved theirs have.
> 
> I do support a war on debt to get it off the plate. It's a foul ball. It's a penalty box. And it's not something I care to leave to my sister's and brother's grandchildren.
> 
> I have a better life as an adult than as a child. I think America is the best place on earth to be. I just do, and I pray every night for those in our government who try to keep a lid on spending, who try to maintain a healthy business climate for families raising children and trying to own a piece of the American pie.
> 
> And I hope the post Obama Congress will repeal the 17th Amendment and call for more involvement of states in their choices for Senators.
> 
> Let today's unfriendly climate in the Senate be our charter for restoring the founder's plan of keeping states engaged in the Republic, and as Oddball pointed out, it's a mobocracy. I think this has  led to this unbusinesslike climate in our Unite States government of a massive free-for-all in spending.
> 
> Let's chuck it and give Senators back to accounting to their state legislatures again.
> 
> And let's make sure they do not devolve to the problems they had that caused the 17th Amendment to be passed and tucked out of people's notice for years while states lost power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I agree with your sentiment. I'm just saying that the Feds have a bad track record when they declare "war" on something. They generally fuck it up and cutting the deficit and paying off the debt is something that is going to have to be done and done right.
Click to expand...

Oh. Thanks. I can appreciate that.

Maybe if we had regular Joes whose work in state legislatures satisfied their contemporaries as to being Senate material headed for the hallowed halls of the Hill rather than the Candidate wearing the best designer clothes with the best ad folks telling them what to do and how to react, i.e. public voter appeal, we'd have less ego and more reasonable men and women used to working hard, having final say over federal legislation, as Senators.

I'm fed up with the glam voter thing. People need to be Senators in the way that Supreme Court Justices are solemn and wise. That would eliminate Hollywood actors with big mouths and no brains from flashing smiles and having glamor photo ops rather than legislative accomplishments in their offerings in Washington. We need people who have good track and communication records in their state legislatures as Senators. The people need to see to it good people are elected into state legislatures, and let it become the Senate pool.

The 17th Amendment took that away, and we need to fix it.


----------



## freedombecki

Tsalagi said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a damned fool if you think that abolishing the Senate is going to solve anything. The Senate serves as a check and balance on the power of the House.
> 
> The problem is that the 17th Amendment changed the nature of the Senate so that it does not function as it was designed or intended.
> 
> 
> 
> Just a small question. How WAS the Senate designed? What was really intended?
> We had bee a colony with no voice, then wallowed for several years as a Confederation, then got our "Divinely inspired" Constitution.
> 
> What was the model? Were we able to examine past failures and successes? Could we tweak something and get it to work better? Where was this form of governance being operated?
> 
> What was REALLY intended? Were they that attuned to the crystal ball of needs 225 years in the future? Or were they simply wise for their generation, attempting to end the stalemate of the Confederation government, and willing to experiment with a new model? Only Gods could have made perfection. They were NOT Gods.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of mathematics being a system? Or are you taking the same stance as the Crown of England that the people on these shores were incapable of self-rule? I'd say the founders had it pretty nailed down, say what you will of their brass tacks intuitiveness that created a free society by employing a useful system of checks and balances of power.


----------



## Tsalagi

freedombecki said:


> Ever heard of mathematics being a system? Or are you taking the same stance as the Crown of England that the people on these shores were incapable of self-rule? I'd say the founders had it pretty nailed down, say what you will of their brass tacks intuitiveness that created a free society by employing a useful system of checks and balances of power.


Imagine! The Crown and the Americans were the Conservatives. The patriots were the Liberals! Does that bring a shiver to your spinal column?
Whether King George and Mr. Pitt believed we would fail, we were still relying on seat of the pants governance. Mostly we got it right with just over 2 dozen Amendments. That's with no experience or data base.
Texas wrote their Constitution a hundred years later and there a dozen or so Amendments on the ballot every four years! And they had a century of precedents to go from! Of course that was back in the reign of Big Jim Hogg, father of Ima Hogg.


----------



## Polk

MuadDib said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texanmike said:
> 
> 
> 
> What leads you to believe that the federal government is any less corrupt than any other level of the government.  The problem was that people did not watch the state governments, not that they are any more inherently corrupt than any other level of government.
> 
> How has the Senate being popularly elected increased the power of the voter?  It has actually had the exact opposite effect. Now instead of having to face the voters every 2 years, a senator only has to face the voter ever six.  On top of that there are some Senators who represent as many as 17 million people. If you don't want to repeal the 17th amendment then just abolish the senate.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you figure repealing the 17th Amendment would make senators face voters more often? Beyond the obvious (that they'll never face voters), once a senator is elected, they are in office for the full term. A change in the state legislature doesn't change that.
> 
> As for the population skew issue, that is an ethical problem in either scenario. I'm all for abolishing the Senate (or at the very least, changing the structure to make it more representative of the population).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a damned fool if you think that abolishing the Senate is going to solve anything. The Senate serves as a check and balance on the power of the House.
> 
> The problem is that the 17th Amendment changed the nature of the Senate so that it does not function as it was designed or intended.
Click to expand...


My objection to the Senate is purely an ethical matter. I don't need it to solve anything to be the right course of action.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The problem with the Senate is not constitutional or structural.

It is greed, and We the People don't send them to jail, is the problem.


----------



## Oddball

Tsalagi said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever heard of mathematics being a system? Or are you taking the same stance as the Crown of England that the people on these shores were incapable of self-rule? I'd say the founders had it pretty nailed down, say what you will of their brass tacks intuitiveness that created a free society by employing a useful system of checks and balances of power.
> 
> 
> 
> Imagine! The Crown and the Americans were the Conservatives. The patriots were the Liberals! Does that bring a shiver to your spinal column?
> Whether King George and Mr. Pitt believed we would fail, we were still relying on seat of the pants governance. Mostly we got it right with just over 2 dozen Amendments. That's with no experience or data base.
> Texas wrote their Constitution a hundred years later and there a dozen or so Amendments on the ballot every four years! And they had a century of precedents to go from! Of course that was back in the reign of Big Jim Hogg, father of Ima Hogg.
Click to expand...

The liberals of the 18th century are today's libertarians, not the socialist "liberals" or soft socialist neocons largely populating the DNC and GOP, respectively, today.

Big difference.


----------



## Tsalagi

Oddball said:


> The liberals of the 18th century are today's libertarians, not the socialist "liberals" or soft socialist neocons largely populating the DNC and GOP, respectively, today.
> Big difference.


Not if you use 1780s definitions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

_The liberals of the 18th century are today's libertarians, not the socialist "liberals" or soft socialist neocons largely populating the DNC and GOP, respectively, today.  Big difference._

Nope.  The libertarians today are merely the flip side of communism: each united by a desire to control the masses, one by a "society of equals" and the other by cadres.

The men of the Enlightenment, whether British or American, would despise such individuals if they had been alive in that day.


----------



## JDzBrain

First, and let's just get this out of the way.  I SERIOUSLY doubt most of liberal constitutional experts posting on this subject are any more of an expert than the so called constitutional lawyer setting in the White House.  I suspect you've never actually bothered to READ the damn document.  So...I'll post the part you're arguing about to save ya the trouble. 

Article I--Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

Paragraph 1,  _All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate *may propose or concur with Amendments *as on other Bills.
_

MAY propose Amendments!  

Legislation IS to originate in the House...PERIOD!



Polk said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why haven't any of the bills passed by the HoR since the repubs took over not seen the light of day?...Care to 'splain that one away?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Harry Reid doesn't have the balls to make the hard calls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate has already voted on, and rejected, the House's budget proposal.
Click to expand...


Uh...before you go around posting stuff with the liberal bent...you MIGHT want to make sure what the circumstance were.  Look at the legislation they voted on.  It bore NO resemblance to the bill that came out of the House!



Polk said:


> False. While the Speaker of the House has supreme control over the calendar, the Senate doesn't function in the same manner.



False!  If Dirty Harry doesn't allow a bill on the docket...it DON'T GET VOTED ON!

For evidence, see your last post I quoted.  The house has passed SIX bills on the budget and NOT ONE was brought up for a vote in the Senate.  They have passed more than THIRTY bills related to employment and NOT ONE has reached the floor of the Senate.  

So that is just total BULL!

The Senate is BROKEN.  The 17th is the reason...and it has GOT to go!


----------



## BakshisMouse

Before the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted, the elections of United States Senators were often decided by whoever donated the most money to the state legislature.

What do you suppose would be the effect of repealing it today?


----------



## Oddball

BakshisMouse said:


> Before the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted, the elections of United States Senators were often decided by whoever donated the most money to the state legislature.
> 
> What do you suppose would be the effect of repealing it today?


Then we rid ourselves of know-nothing hacks like Chuck Schumer, detached fossils like McCain and Byrd, and  and outright criminals like Dianne Frankenstein.


----------



## BakshisMouse

Oddball said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted, the elections of United States Senators were often decided by whoever donated the most money to the state legislature.
> 
> What do you suppose would be the effect of repealing it today?
> 
> 
> 
> Then we rid ourselves of know-nothing hacks like Chuck Schumer, detached fossils like McCain and Byrd, and  and outright criminals like Dianne Frankenstein.
Click to expand...


That still doesn't address the problem of corruption at the state government level.


----------



## Oddball

What...They're not corrupt as hell right now?

The level of corruption follows the amount of power those creeps amass, not how they manage to attain the office.


----------



## BakshisMouse

Oddball said:


> What...They're not corrupt as hell right now?
> 
> The level of corruption follows the amount of power those creeps amass, not how they manage to attain the office.



Even if we get rid of all the corrupt Senators in Washington right now, (probably all 100 of them) *how will we address corruption at the state level?*


----------



## Oddball

Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.


----------



## BakshisMouse

JDzBrain said:


> First, and let's just get this out of the way.  I SERIOUSLY doubt most of liberal constitutional experts posting on this subject are any more of an expert than the so called constitutional lawyer setting in the White House.  I suspect you've never actually bothered to READ the damn document.  So...I'll post the part you're arguing about to save ya the trouble.
> 
> Article I--Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
> 
> Paragraph 1,  _All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate *may propose or concur with Amendments *as on other Bills.
> _



The Constitution only restricts legislation relating to taxes from originating in the house. Where in that document is it forbidden for the Senate to originate any other type of legislation?


----------



## BakshisMouse

Oddball said:


> Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.



Would you please still address how citizens should address corruption at the state level in the hypothetical situation that the 17th amendment is repealed?


----------



## BakshisMouse

BakshisMouse said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please still address how citizens should address corruption at the state level in the hypothetical situation that the 17th amendment is repealed?
Click to expand...


You do realize that the answer to that question is independent of the original reason to enact the 17th amendment, right?


----------



## Oddball

BakshisMouse said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please still address how citizens should address corruption at the state level in the hypothetical situation that the 17th amendment is repealed?
Click to expand...

Like I said, that's a total red herring.

Corruption results from the amount of power that the politicians have, not in how they end up with the position.

You want politicians to not be bought and sold, take away what they're selling.


----------



## BakshisMouse

BakshisMouse said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please still address how citizens should address corruption at the state level in the hypothetical situation that the 17th amendment is repealed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that the answer to that question is independent of the original reason to enact the 17th amendment, right?
Click to expand...

^^^^
Still pertinent.


----------



## BakshisMouse

Oddball said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you please still address how citizens should address corruption at the state level in the hypothetical situation that the 17th amendment is repealed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, that's a total red herring.
> 
> Corruption results from the amount of power that the politicians have, not in how they end up with the position.
> 
> *You want politicians to not be bought and sold, take away what they're selling.*
Click to expand...


That's the closest you've come to answering the question I pose, and it still makes no sense. Should we take away money from wealthy people so that they cannot bribe politicians?


----------



## Oddball

What makes no sense is your apparent supposition that corruption of popularly elected politicians is any better a deal than that of those appointed by state legislatures.


----------



## BakshisMouse

Oddball said:


> What makes no sense is your apparent supposition that corruption of popularly elected politicians is any better a deal than those appointed by state legislatures.



Why is it so important that state legislatures get to appoint Senators? Since when do we care about the rights our state governments have to representation?

Seriously, why are the rights of the state government more sacrosanct than those of the federal government?


----------



## Oddball

So, you're admitting total ignorance of the idea of federalism and dual sovereignty....Now we're getting somewhere.

The reason has to do with apportionment of direct federal taxes, which are left to the state agencies to collect and forward to the feds.....Senators appointed by the state legislatures meant that the states had a say in federal budgets.

Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, no state has had any say in the ever expanding bloat of federal taxation and spending.


----------



## BakshisMouse

Oddball said:


> So, you're admitting total ignorance of the idea of federalism and dual sovereignty....Now we're getting somewhere.
> 
> The reason has to do with apportionment of direct federal taxes, which are left to the state agencies to collect and forward to the feds.....Senators appointed by the state legislatures meant that the states had a say in federal budgets.
> 
> Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, no state has had any say in the ever expanding bloat of federal taxation and spending.



Now that I think about it, I am truly warming to the idea of repealing the 17th amendment.

This doesn't even have to be a left/right issue. Having Senators appointed by State Legislatures might make it easier to pass bills that give grants to states to fill budget shortfalls. That's a liberal/Democrat pet issue, if you don't know.

I still don't think it will be on the top of my "give a care" list, though.


----------



## freedombecki

BakshisMouse said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes no sense is your apparent supposition that corruption of popularly elected politicians is any better a deal than those appointed by state legislatures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important that state legislatures get to appoint Senators? Since when do we care about the rights our state governments have to representation?
> 
> Seriously, why are the rights of the state government more sacrosanct than those of the federal government?
Click to expand...

Bakshis Mouse, please read the Federalist Papers before you take on the erudite Mr. Oddball again. I see you're having difficulty understanding the national discussion that went on about state and federal powers and why the 17th Amendment went against states instead of for states as the founders deliberately set up as separate, but equal partners in the fed.

The 17th Amendment as it reads, is being used to push the nation closer and closer to mob justice. That was an unintended consequence that had been thoroughly examined in the preceding century and forgotten by do-gooders trying to fix an entirely different problem--vice.

Here's a link to the Federalist Papers for your edification. Enjoy!


----------



## BakshisMouse

Damn. That firefox/vbulletin issue screwed me again.


----------



## freedombecki

Tell a moderator. You could start with Mr. Oddball, who I understand is one. 

And I am glad to hear you are warming to the idea of repealing the 17th Dinosaur, I mean, Amendment.


----------



## BakshisMouse

freedombecki said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes no sense is your apparent supposition that corruption of popularly elected politicians is any better a deal than those appointed by state legislatures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important that state legislatures get to appoint Senators? Since when do we care about the rights our state governments have to representation?
> 
> Seriously, why are the rights of the state government more sacrosanct than those of the federal government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bakshis Mouse, please read the Federalist Papers before you take on the erudite Mr. Oddball again. I see you're having difficulty understanding the national discussion that went on about state and federal powers and why the 17th Amendment went against states instead of for states as the founders deliberately set up as separate, but equal partners in the fed.
> 
> The 17th Amendment as it reads, is being used to push the nation closer and closer to mob justice. That was an unintended consequence that had been thoroughly examined in the preceding century and forgotten by do-gooders trying to fix an entirely different problem--vice.
> 
> Here's a link to the Federalist Papers for your edification. Enjoy!
Click to expand...

As wise as the founding father's were, my favorite quote from one of them is this:



			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."


source

We must have logical reasons for the rules we have. Despite what you might think, "They did it in the 18th century, so we should do the same now" is not really a logical reason.

Remember, the Constitution can be amended to say pretty much anything. It's even more important to remember that the Constitution is the law, and not the Federalist Papers.

As for the argument that popular vote is undesirable: I disagree. I don't have to concur with Alexander Hamilton to be a proper American. However, I did give one reason why popular vote of Senators might be a bad idea.


----------



## BakshisMouse

freedombecki said:


> Tell a moderator. You could start with Mr. Oddball, who I understand is one.
> 
> And I am glad to hear you are warming to the idea of repealing the 17th Dinosaur, I mean, Amendment.



I just made a ton of duplicate posts. To be honest, some of them had slight revisions. I deleted them myself.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Fact: no one has given a _prima facie _case with supporting critical evidence that the 17th needs to be amended.

Fact: a lot of libertarian stupidity about budgets and House duties is rampant in this thread.


----------



## MuadDib

BakshisMouse said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important that state legislatures get to appoint Senators? Since when do we care about the rights our state governments have to representation?
> 
> Seriously, why are the rights of the state government more sacrosanct than those of the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> Bakshis Mouse, please read the Federalist Papers before you take on the erudite Mr. Oddball again. I see you're having difficulty understanding the national discussion that went on about state and federal powers and why the 17th Amendment went against states instead of for states as the founders deliberately set up as separate, but equal partners in the fed.
> 
> The 17th Amendment as it reads, is being used to push the nation closer and closer to mob justice. That was an unintended consequence that had been thoroughly examined in the preceding century and forgotten by do-gooders trying to fix an entirely different problem--vice.
> 
> Here's a link to the Federalist Papers for your edification. Enjoy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As wise as the founding father's were, my favorite quote from one of them is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> source
> 
> We must have logical reasons for the rules we have. Despite what you might think, "They did it in the 18th century, so we should do the same now" is not really a logical reason.
> 
> Remember, the Constitution can be amended to say pretty much anything. It's even more important to remember that the Constitution is the law, and not the Federalist Papers.
> 
> As for the argument that popular vote is undesirable: I disagree. I don't have to concur with Alexander Hamilton to be a proper American. However, I did give one reason why popular vote of Senators might be a bad idea.
Click to expand...


Would you say that the Constitution can be amended to eliminate the executive, legislative, or judicial branches?


----------



## BakshisMouse

MuadDib said:


> Would you say that the Constitution can be amended to eliminate the executive, legislative, or judicial branches?


Hypothetically, there could be an amendment that abolishes all governments inside the United States, leaving the people to anarchy.


----------



## BakshisMouse

JakeStarkey said:


> Fact: no one has given a _prima facie _case with supporting critical evidence that the 17th needs to be amended.
> 
> Fact: a lot of libertarian stupidity about budgets and House duties is rampant in this thread.



From a purely utilitarian point of view, such repeal could be used to make it easier for states to get grants from the government so that they can fill budget shortfalls. I think that would ease a lot of suffering.


----------



## JakeStarkey

BakshisMouse said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: no one has given a _prima facie _case with supporting critical evidence that the 17th needs to be amended.
> 
> Fact: a lot of libertarian stupidity about budgets and House duties is rampant in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a purely utilitarian point of view, such repeal could be used to make it easier for states to get grants from the government so that they can fill budget shortfalls. I think that would ease a lot of suffering.
Click to expand...


Somehow that is not Oddball's concern, I think.


----------



## freedombecki

BakshisMouse said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that the Constitution can be amended to eliminate the executive, legislative, or judicial branches?
> 
> 
> 
> Hypothetically, there could be an amendment that abolishes all governments inside the United States, leaving the people to anarchy.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making the case for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

The present Senate is in anarchy because popularists with no ties to their state legislatures are acting as though they are *the* make-a-wish-foundation for every entity or person who donated to Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.

The Republican House is simply not cooperating, nor should they. It's preposterous to reward Barrack's supporters who take millions and go bankrupt in less than 2 years at taxpayer expense.

I've had enough, haven't you?


----------



## BakshisMouse

JakeStarkey said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fact: no one has given a prima facie case with supporting critical evidence that the 17th needs to be amended.*
> 
> Fact: a lot of libertarian stupidity about budgets and House duties is rampant in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From a purely utilitarian point of view, such repeal could be used to make it easier for states to get grants from the government so that they can fill budget shortfalls. I think that would ease a lot of suffering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Somehow that is not Oddball's concern, I think.
Click to expand...


It is, however, a counterexample to the bolded.


----------



## BakshisMouse

freedombecki said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that the Constitution can be amended to eliminate the executive, legislative, or judicial branches?
> 
> 
> 
> Hypothetically, there could be an amendment that abolishes all governments inside the United States, leaving the people to anarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making the case for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
> 
> *The present Senate is in anarchy because popularists with no ties to their state legislatures are acting as though they are the make-a-wish-foundation for every entity or person who donated to Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.*
> 
> I've had enough, haven't you?
Click to expand...

Why can't the same be said of the House? Is that only because it is under a Republican majority?


----------



## freedombecki

BakshisMouse said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hypothetically, there could be an amendment that abolishes all governments inside the United States, leaving the people to anarchy.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making the case for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
> 
> *The present Senate is in anarchy because popularists with no ties to their state legislatures are acting as though they are the make-a-wish-foundation for every entity or person who donated to Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.*
> 
> I've had enough, haven't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't the same be said of the House? Is that only because it is under a Republican majority?
Click to expand...

First things first, Bakshish. PLZ go read the Federalist Papers first. THX.


----------



## BakshisMouse

freedombecki said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making the case for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
> 
> *The present Senate is in anarchy because popularists with no ties to their state legislatures are acting as though they are the make-a-wish-foundation for every entity or person who donated to Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.*
> 
> I've had enough, haven't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't the same be said of the House? Is that only because it is under a Republican majority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First things first, Bakshish. PLZ go read the Federalist Papers first. THX.
Click to expand...


I am _so_ sorry, but my apathy is getting in the way. 

On an unrelated note, would you please respond to the following:



			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."


source


----------



## freedombecki

BakshisMouse said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't the same be said of the House? Is that only because it is under a Republican majority?
> 
> 
> 
> First things first, Bakshish. PLZ go read the Federalist Papers first. THX.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am _so_ sorry, but my apathy is getting in the way.
> 
> On an unrelated note, would you please respond to the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> source
Click to expand...

Not until you can at least reach Mr. Oddball's ankles to do your biting. That will be accomplished when you read from start to finish the link you were given preceding your demands. Meanwhile, stay under the porch until you are fit to run with the big doggies, sweetie.


----------



## BakshisMouse

freedombecki said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> First things first, Bakshish. PLZ go read the Federalist Papers first. THX.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am _so_ sorry, but my apathy is getting in the way.
> 
> On an unrelated note, would you please respond to the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> source
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not until you can at least reach Mr. Oddball's ankles to do your biting. That will be accomplished when you read from start to finish the link you were given preceding your demands. Meanwhile, stay under the porch until you are fit to run with the big doggies, sweetie.
Click to expand...

But Ma'am, how can I prove that I've read the Federalist Papers sufficiently? Shall I write a book report?


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted, the elections of United States Senators were often decided by whoever donated the most money to the state legislature.
> 
> What do you suppose would be the effect of repealing it today?
> 
> 
> 
> Then we rid ourselves of know-nothing hacks like Chuck Schumer, detached fossils like McCain and Byrd, and  and outright criminals like Dianne Frankenstein.
Click to expand...




what color is the sky on your home planet?


----------



## Tsalagi

freedombecki said:


> Bakshis Mouse, please read the Federalist Papers before you take on the erudite Mr. Oddball again. I see you're having difficulty understanding the national discussion that went on about state and federal powers and why the 17th Amendment went against states instead of for states as the founders deliberately set up as separate, but equal partners in the fed.
> 
> The 17th Amendment as it reads, is being used to push the nation closer and closer to mob justice. That was an unintended consequence that had been thoroughly examined in the preceding century and forgotten by do-gooders trying to fix an entirely different problem--vice.
> 
> Here's a link to the Federalist Papers for your edification. Enjoy!


Pretty, but the Federalist Papers aren't the Constitution ratified by the Congress assembled. Neither was the Wealth of Nations, De l'Esprit des Lois, or The Republic. Ergo, it has little bearing.


----------



## BakshisMouse

Tsalagi said:


> Pretty, but the Federalist Papers aren't the Constitution ratified by the Congress assembled. Neither was the Wealth of Nations, De l'Esprit des Lois, or The Republic. Ergo, it has little bearing.



Exactly my fucking point!


----------



## Annie

Tsalagi said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bakshis Mouse, please read the Federalist Papers before you take on the erudite Mr. Oddball again. I see you're having difficulty understanding the national discussion that went on about state and federal powers and why the 17th Amendment went against states instead of for states as the founders deliberately set up as separate, but equal partners in the fed.
> 
> The 17th Amendment as it reads, is being used to push the nation closer and closer to mob justice. That was an unintended consequence that had been thoroughly examined in the preceding century and forgotten by do-gooders trying to fix an entirely different problem--vice.
> 
> Here's a link to the Federalist Papers for your edification. Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty, but the Federalist Papers aren't the Constitution ratified by the Congress assembled. Neither was the Wealth of Nations, De l'Esprit des Lois, or The Republic. Ergo, it has little bearing.
Click to expand...


No, they are not. However they do directly tell us, in first person what the thinking of the framers was at their time. Lots of lessons, for those willing to be schooled.


----------



## BakshisMouse

Annie said:


> No, they are not. However they do directly tell us, in first person what the thinking of the framers was at their time. *Lots of lessons*, for those willing to be schooled.


They are more lessons in history than they are lessons in how to form Constitutions for the 21st century, though.



			
				Thomas Jefferson said:
			
		

> "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."


source


----------



## MuadDib

BakshisMouse said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that the Constitution can be amended to eliminate the executive, legislative, or judicial branches?
> 
> 
> 
> Hypothetically, there could be an amendment that abolishes all governments inside the United States, leaving the people to anarchy.
Click to expand...


That would be a repeal of the Constitution. Are you sure you want that?


----------



## BakshisMouse

MuadDib said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that the Constitution can be amended to eliminate the executive, legislative, or judicial branches?
> 
> 
> 
> Hypothetically, there could be an amendment that abolishes all governments inside the United States, leaving the people to anarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a repeal of the Constitution. Are you sure you want that?
Click to expand...


I'm not saying that's what I what. I'm only saying it's hypothetically possible for such an amendment to be passed.


----------



## MuadDib

Tsalagi said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bakshis Mouse, please read the Federalist Papers before you take on the erudite Mr. Oddball again. I see you're having difficulty understanding the national discussion that went on about state and federal powers and why the 17th Amendment went against states instead of for states as the founders deliberately set up as separate, but equal partners in the fed.
> 
> The 17th Amendment as it reads, is being used to push the nation closer and closer to mob justice. That was an unintended consequence that had been thoroughly examined in the preceding century and forgotten by do-gooders trying to fix an entirely different problem--vice.
> 
> Here's a link to the Federalist Papers for your edification. Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty, but the Federalist Papers aren't the Constitution ratified by the Congress assembled. Neither was the Wealth of Nations, De l'Esprit des Lois, or The Republic. Ergo, it has little bearing.
Click to expand...


It has a great deal of bearing. The Federalist essays were the very arguments by the advocates of the Constitution, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, as to why it should be adopted and ratified. Madison wrote most of them and as the author of much of the Constitution, you get the details behind what he and the other Founders were thinking.

You can't understand the Constitution or your government without reading them.

If more people had read them today, then they would have read #62 where Madison said, "It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"

Obama, Congress, and the Supreme Court wouldn't have wasted so much time and our money on Obamacare.


----------



## JakeStarkey

freedombecki said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making the case for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
> 
> *The present Senate is in anarchy because popularists with no ties to their state legislatures are acting as though they are the make-a-wish-foundation for every entity or person who donated to Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.*
> 
> I've had enough, haven't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Why can't the same be said of the House? Is that only because it is under a Republican majority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First things first, Bakshish. PLZ go read the Federalist Papers first. THX.
Click to expand...


What a lame comment.  The argument is that the 17th Amendment should be amended and NO ONE has give a critical unbiased factual case for it.  Try that, please.


----------



## Oddball

BakshisMouse said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're admitting total ignorance of the idea of federalism and dual sovereignty....Now we're getting somewhere.
> 
> The reason has to do with apportionment of direct federal taxes, which are left to the state agencies to collect and forward to the feds.....Senators appointed by the state legislatures meant that the states had a say in federal budgets.
> 
> Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, no state has had any say in the ever expanding bloat of federal taxation and spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I think about it, I am truly warming to the idea of repealing the 17th amendment.
> 
> This doesn't even have to be a left/right issue. Having Senators appointed by State Legislatures might make it easier to pass bills that give grants to states to fill budget shortfalls. That's a liberal/Democrat pet issue, if you don't know.
> 
> I still don't think it will be on the top of my "give a care" list, though.
Click to expand...

Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?


----------



## JakeStarkey

You describe your intellectual process well, OddOne.

We are waiting for a reasonable critical support of the OP.  There has not been one yet.


----------



## Polk

Oddball said:


> Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.



That's a huge motivation. Go back and look at documents from the time.


----------



## Polk

BakshisMouse said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes no sense is your apparent supposition that corruption of popularly elected politicians is any better a deal than those appointed by state legislatures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so important that state legislatures get to appoint Senators? Since when do we care about the rights our state governments have to representation?
> 
> Seriously, why are the rights of the state government more sacrosanct than those of the federal government?
Click to expand...


The better question is why the "rights" of state government are more sacrosanct than those of the people.


----------



## Polk

freedombecki said:


> The Republican House is simply not cooperating, nor should they. It's preposterous to reward Barrack's supporters who take millions and go bankrupt in less than 2 years at taxpayer expense.
> 
> I've had enough, haven't you?



I think you're mixing up the Senate the House Banking Committee, which sees it's purpose as "to serve the banks".


----------



## Polk

Oddball said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're admitting total ignorance of the idea of federalism and dual sovereignty....Now we're getting somewhere.
> 
> The reason has to do with apportionment of direct federal taxes, which are left to the state agencies to collect and forward to the feds.....Senators appointed by the state legislatures meant that the states had a say in federal budgets.
> 
> Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, no state has had any say in the ever expanding bloat of federal taxation and spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I think about it, I am truly warming to the idea of repealing the 17th amendment.
> 
> This doesn't even have to be a left/right issue. Having Senators appointed by State Legislatures might make it easier to pass bills that give grants to states to fill budget shortfalls. That's a liberal/Democrat pet issue, if you don't know.
> 
> I still don't think it will be on the top of my "give a care" list, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.
> 
> You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?
Click to expand...


Except that the federal government doesn't take any money from the states to start with, because the money doesn't belong to the state. I do find it very interesting that a so-called libertarian sees money as an endowment of the state though.


----------



## Oddball

Polk said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I think about it, I am truly warming to the idea of repealing the 17th amendment.
> 
> This doesn't even have to be a left/right issue. Having Senators appointed by State Legislatures might make it easier to pass bills that give grants to states to fill budget shortfalls. That's a liberal/Democrat pet issue, if you don't know.
> 
> I still don't think it will be on the top of my "give a care" list, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.
> 
> You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that the federal government doesn't take any money from the states to start with, because the money doesn't belong to the state. I do find it very interesting that a so-called libertarian sees money as an endowment of the state though.
Click to expand...

Apportioned federal taxes are collected by the states.....That's what "apportionment" means.

In any case, the feds still have no money of their own to "give" to the states to plug their budget holes.


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> What makes no sense is your apparent supposition that corruption of popularly elected politicians is any better a deal than that of those appointed by state legislatures.



if only they'd rearranged the deck chairs on the titanic....


----------



## del

MuadDib said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that the Constitution can be amended to eliminate the executive, legislative, or judicial branches?
> 
> 
> 
> Hypothetically, there could be an amendment that abolishes all governments inside the United States, leaving the people to anarchy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be a repeal of the Constitution. Are you sure you want that?
Click to expand...


you're the one that asked for it, asshat

fail


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you're admitting total ignorance of the idea of federalism and dual sovereignty....Now we're getting somewhere.
> 
> The reason has to do with apportionment of direct federal taxes, which are left to the state agencies to collect and forward to the feds.....Senators appointed by the state legislatures meant that the states had a say in federal budgets.
> 
> Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, no state has had any say in the ever expanding bloat of federal taxation and spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I think about it, I am truly warming to the idea of repealing the 17th amendment.
> 
> This doesn't even have to be a left/right issue. Having Senators appointed by State Legislatures might make it easier to pass bills that give grants to states to fill budget shortfalls. That's a liberal/Democrat pet issue, if you don't know.
> 
> I still don't think it will be on the top of my "give a care" list, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.
> 
> You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?
Click to expand...


let me know when you find a state legislature that let a lack of available funds stop them from spending.


----------



## Polk

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I think about it, I am truly warming to the idea of repealing the 17th amendment.
> 
> This doesn't even have to be a left/right issue. Having Senators appointed by State Legislatures might make it easier to pass bills that give grants to states to fill budget shortfalls. That's a liberal/Democrat pet issue, if you don't know.
> 
> I still don't think it will be on the top of my "give a care" list, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.
> 
> You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know when you find a state legislature that let a lack of available funds stop them from spending.
Click to expand...


All of them except one (Vermont, I think) must have balanced budgets.


----------



## Oddball

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BakshisMouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that I think about it, I am truly warming to the idea of repealing the 17th amendment.
> 
> This doesn't even have to be a left/right issue. Having Senators appointed by State Legislatures might make it easier to pass bills that give grants to states to fill budget shortfalls. That's a liberal/Democrat pet issue, if you don't know.
> 
> I still don't think it will be on the top of my "give a care" list, though.
> 
> 
> 
> Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.
> 
> You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> let me know when you find a state legislature that let a lack of available funds stop them from spending.
Click to expand...

Just because the feds bailed out the states that overspent and over promised doesn't change the fact the gubmint has no money of its own...Nor does it change the fact that the states can't print up more money like the feds can.


----------



## del

Polk said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.
> 
> You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let me know when you find a state legislature that let a lack of available funds stop them from spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of them except one (Vermont, I think) must have balanced budgets.
Click to expand...


they fund to their spending instead of spending to their funds. 

it's all a shell game.


----------



## Polk

Oddball said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.
> 
> You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let me know when you find a state legislature that let a lack of available funds stop them from spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because the feds bailed out the states that overspent and over promised doesn't change the fact the gubmint has no money of its own...Nor does it change the fact that the states can't print up more money like the feds can.
Click to expand...


Well, the federal government doesn't have any money of its own, but state governments do. At least, that was your position a few minutes ago.


----------



## Polk

del said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me know when you find a state legislature that let a lack of available funds stop them from spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of them except one (Vermont, I think) must have balanced budgets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> they fund to their spending instead of spending to their funds.
> 
> it's all a shell game.
Click to expand...


I'd say there is something to be said for having to honestly account for how your spending money.


----------



## del

Oddball said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.
> 
> You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let me know when you find a state legislature that let a lack of available funds stop them from spending.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because the feds bailed out the states that overspent and over promised doesn't change the fact the gubmint has no money of its own...Nor does it change the fact that the states can't print up more money like the feds can.
Click to expand...


and none of that changes if the 17th is repealed.

whoop de fucking doo


----------



## freedombecki

del said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> let me know when you find a state legislature that let a lack of available funds stop them from spending.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the feds bailed out the states that overspent and over promised doesn't change the fact the gubmint has no money of its own...Nor does it change the fact that the states can't print up more money like the feds can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and none of that changes if the 17th is repealed.
> 
> whoop de fucking doo
Click to expand...

The benefit of repealing the amendment is to give the 50 State Legislatures an opportunity to stress state needs and goals to the Senator. Some state legislatures are comprised of people who are enthusiastic about serving the people who elected them, and they do all they can to get the best possible state-caring person in the Senate Seat that turns over every other term.

We need Senators who are fiscally responsible people, and I think it's just possible the people of other states realize that's key to this society--running government in a fiscally disciplined way.

It's as happy as having a debonaire emu around sometimes.


----------



## Dr Grump

MuadDib said:


> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.
> 
> According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *chosen by the Legislature thereof*, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, US Senators were not elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives were elected by the people to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was *appointed by the state legislatures* to represent the inerests of the states.  That kept senators out of the political process.
> 
> That was changed 1910 by the progressives when they changed that with the 17th Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *elected by the people thereof, for six years*; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
> 
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Hilarity ensues!
Click to expand...


Because, ya know, if the states appointed the Senators there would be no politics involved, right? 

I mean prior to 1910, Senators were apolitical, right?


----------



## JakeStarkey

freedombecki said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the feds bailed out the states that overspent and over promised doesn't change the fact the gubmint has no money of its own...Nor does it change the fact that the states can't print up more money like the feds can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and none of that changes if the 17th is repealed.
> 
> whoop de fucking doo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The benefit of repealing the amendment is to give the 50 State Legislatures an opportunity to stress state needs and goals to the Senator. Some state legislatures are comprised of people who are enthusiastic about serving the people who elected them, and they do all they can to get the best possible state-caring person in the Senate Seat that turns over every other term.  We need Senators who are fiscally responsible people, and I think it's just possible the people of other states realize that's key to this society--running government in a fiscally disciplined way.  It's as happy as having a debonaire emu around sometimes.
Click to expand...


The needs of the state are expressed to the Senator by the majority vote.  You are not going to get fiscally responsible senators who are beholden to the majority party in the state senate.

Unlike OddOne, you tried to make a case.


----------



## JDzBrain

BakshisMouse said:


> I am _so_ sorry, but my apathy is getting in the way.
> 
> On an unrelated note, would you please respond to the following:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in *laws* and *constitutions*, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
> 
> 
> 
> source
Click to expand...

You DO realize that the quote is a very short MISQUOTED blurb from a very long paragraph in a multi page letter Mr. Jefferson wrote to a historian in response to the gentleman's asking Jefferson's opinion on calling a convention to alter the Constitution of Virgina...right?

You will notice that Mr. Jefferson used the plurals of the words laws and constitutions, which I made bold in you partial quote.  He did this because he was talking about states...plural...constitutions.  You know, the places the founders viewed as a bunch of little laboratories for government.  Or you would if you read the Federalist papers.  ;~)

HERE is the way that passage ACTUALLY was written...with the part you leave out made bold and I think you can see that it absolutely changes the tenor of it entirely!  

"_...I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions.* I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects.* But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.... _"

NOT the sterling endorsement of constitutional change that your out of context quote would have us believe!

The letter was...in the most genteel manner of the day...a rebuff of the notion of constitutional amendments, except under the most dire of needs!



BakshisMouse said:


> The Constitution only restricts legislation relating to taxes from originating in the house. Where in that document is it forbidden for the Senate to originate any other type of legislation?


Where in the Constitution is that power GIVEN to them?  The founders went to great trouble to spell out the powers given an forbidden to the branches and states and then make sure there is no mistake by saying all powers NOT expressly given or forbidden in the Constitution ARE reserved to the states or the people...yet I find no mention of the authority you seem to believe exist.


----------



## JDzBrain

JakeStarkey said:


> The needs of the state are expressed to the Senator by the majority vote.  You are not going to get fiscally responsible senators who are beholden to the majority party in the state senate.
> 
> Unlike OddOne, you tried to make a case.


Uh...NO...they ain't expressed through the vote.  That's why its called the 'popular' vote.  It's an expression of popularity, based as much on personality and public image...shaped by MONEY...as anything!

Why in the HELL do you guys think they fought against the ending of earmarks tooth and nail?  THAT is their power!  

They try to claim that directing how the people's money is spent is their job...and it's true, but it does NOT have to be through earmarks.  It is SUPPOSED to be done through specific legislative action that directs the funds and their use that is voted on and agreed to by BOTH houses of Congress and signed by the president.  NOT some tacked on amendment to a farm bill that builds a bridge to nowhere or fixes pot hole in New York or names a science building at a college campus after a governor in Tennessee.

If the state's representatives in Washington...the Senators were TRULY beholden to the state they represent, that bride in Alaska would have never even been proposed.  And YES there were politics involved before the 17th.   Why doesn't someone explain just exactly HOW passing the 17th Amendment changed that?

The difference today is that fool screen you are looking at.  The same kind of insanity that was going on before 1918 can NOT go unchangeable in today's information age.  Just do a search for conservative forums or progressive forums or libertarian forums in your state...hell, your city or town.  I'll guarantee that you find one...and it is VERY ACTIVE if you do.

Repealing the 17th is the ONLY sure way to get the electorate engaged in local and state politics and clean up that FREAKIN' MESS in Washington.  It HAS to start at the local level!

Will it be messy and painful.  HELL yes, but NOTHING worth doing is done without a cost!


----------



## del

it's always semi interesting to watch some asshat on a messageboard interpret the words of someone who's been dead for two hundred years.

strangely, the interpretation always supports the asshat.

go figure


----------



## freedombecki

Dr Grump said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.
> 
> According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *chosen by the Legislature thereof*, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
> 
> 
> 
> Originally, US Senators were not elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives were elected by the people to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was *appointed by the state legislatures* to represent the inerests of the states.  That kept senators out of the political process.
> 
> That was changed 1910 by the progressives when they changed that with the 17th Amendment:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, *elected by the people thereof, for six years*; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
> When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
> 
> This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Hilarity ensues!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because, ya know, *if the states appointed the Senators there would be no politics involved*, right?
> 
> I mean prior to 1910, Senators were apolitical, right?
Click to expand...

Thank you for making my case, Dr. Grump. Their senators would be all about THEIR OWN STATE, and not somebody else's state. If the state objected too much to the errant Senator from their state who failed to help their state's governmental issue, they would immediately prepare to put in a better head on Thinktank Hill. Thanks for the assist!


----------



## freedombecki

del said:


> it's always semi interesting to watch some asshat on a messageboard interpret the words of someone who's been dead for two hundred years.
> 
> strangely, the interpretation always supports the asshat.
> 
> go figure




/wiping monitor with nearest available cloth item...


----------



## JDzBrain

Almost as interesting as watching some asshat flail aimlessly because the light of a whole truth burns away the fog of a partial lie!

Strangely, NOT as interesting as watching some asshat ask someone who has been dead for 200 years what they meant would be!


----------



## del

JDzBrain said:


> Almost as interesting as watching some asshat flail aimlessly because the light of a whole truth burns away the fog of a partial lie!
> 
> Strangely, NOT as interesting as watching some asshat ask someone who has been dead for 200 years what they meant would be!



perhaps you should try again in english and perhaps with a tad less pretension?


----------



## Toro

del said:


> it's always semi interesting to watch some asshat on a messageboard interpret the words of someone who's been dead for two hundred years.
> 
> strangely, the interpretation always supports the asshat.
> 
> go figure



Jefferson thought I was awesome.


----------



## del

Toro said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's always semi interesting to watch some asshat on a messageboard interpret the words of someone who's been dead for two hundred years.
> 
> strangely, the interpretation always supports the asshat.
> 
> go figure
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jefferson thought I was awesome.
Click to expand...


who could blame him?

rufus king admired my golf swing


----------



## JakeStarkey

JDzBrain said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The needs of the state are expressed to the Senator by the majority vote.  You are not going to get fiscally responsible senators who are beholden to the majority party in the state senate.
> 
> Unlike OddOne, you tried to make a case.
> 
> 
> 
> . . . . Repealing the 17th is the ONLY sure way to get the electorate engaged in local and state politics and clean up that FREAKIN' MESS in Washington.  It HAS to start at the local level!. . . .
Click to expand...


Well, well, well . . . a call for an inverse populism to revert control of the Senators from We the People to the controlled interests in the state leges.

Your argumentation fails.


----------



## Dr Grump

freedombecki said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.
> 
> According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:
> 
> Originally, US Senators were not elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives were elected by the people to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was *appointed by the state legislatures* to represent the inerests of the states.  That kept senators out of the political process.
> 
> That was changed 1910 by the progressives when they changed that with the 17th Amendment:
> 
> Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Hilarity ensues!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because, ya know, *if the states appointed the Senators there would be no politics involved*, right?
> 
> I mean prior to 1910, Senators were apolitical, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for making my case, Dr. Grump. Their senators would be all about THEIR OWN STATE, and not somebody else's state. If the state objected too much to the errant Senator from their state who failed to help their state's governmental issue, they would immediately prepare to put in a better head on Thinktank Hill. Thanks for the assist!
Click to expand...


And if you really think that, then you are naive. Was that the way it was prior to 1910?


----------



## Tsalagi

I guess you don't remember Senator Richard Byrd, Senator Lyndon Johnson, Senator Strom Thurmond, etc who spent their entire careers getting as much for their own state, to hell with the others. Or Senator Daniel Inoai, whe got an Interstate Highway built on the Island of Haraii?


----------



## freedombecki

Dr Grump said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because, ya know, *if the states appointed the Senators there would be no politics involved*, right?
> 
> I mean prior to 1910, Senators were apolitical, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my case, Dr. Grump. Their senators would be all about THEIR OWN STATE, and not somebody else's state. If the state objected too much to the errant Senator from their state who failed to help their state's governmental issue, they would immediately prepare to put in a better head on Thinktank Hill. Thanks for the assist!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if you really think that, then you are naive. Was that the way it was prior to 1910?
Click to expand...

No doubt they had some problems. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't much of a solution, either.

You probably were taught that Americans are naive and that you should patronize them at every opportunity, great or small.

Over here, we have public pow wows, and with certain people in Congress diverting billions of dollars to their own families with 100% guaranteed business deals, we realize the 17th Amendment fell short of its intended prevention and replaced it with something much worse. We need to fix it and get rid of this government-as-god crap that is being foisted on America by groups interested only in lining their pockets with tax money the American people pay, salving their miserable guilt complex by ensuring the lowest 47% pay no taxes to get them elected to help themselves to more for themselves and their inner circle on "rich people's money" for which they have nothing but disrespect.

They're leeches. It's time to clean the pond.


----------



## Dr Grump

freedombecki said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my case, Dr. Grump. Their senators would be all about THEIR OWN STATE, and not somebody else's state. If the state objected too much to the errant Senator from their state who failed to help their state's governmental issue, they would immediately prepare to put in a better head on Thinktank Hill. Thanks for the assist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you really think that, then you are naive. Was that the way it was prior to 1910?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt they had some problems. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't much of a solution, either.
> 
> You probably were taught that Americans are naive and that you should patronize them at every opportunity, great or small.
> 
> Over here, we have public pow wows, and with certain people in Congress diverting billions of dollars to their own families with 100% guaranteed business deals, we realize the 17th Amendment fell short of its intended prevention and replaced it with something much worse. We need to fix it and get rid of this government-as-god crap that is being foisted on America by groups interested only in lining their pockets with tax money the American people pay, salving their miserable guilt complex by ensuring the lowest 47% pay no taxes to get them elected to help themselves to more for themselves and their inner circle on "rich people's money" for which they have nothing but disrespect.
> 
> They're leeches. It's time to clean the pond.
Click to expand...


But do you trust your state legislatures to appoint the right person, or will they just fill them with cronies, too? 

No, I don't think Yanks are naive, but as for being patronising, of course, you weren't being like that towards me, were you?

The rest of your post is generalised clap trap with nothing much solid to back it up with..


----------



## freedombecki

Dr Grump said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you really think that, then you are naive. Was that the way it was prior to 1910?
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt they had some problems. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't much of a solution, either.
> 
> You probably were taught that Americans are naive and that you should patronize them at every opportunity, great or small.
> 
> Over here, we have public pow wows, and with certain people in Congress diverting billions of dollars to their own families with 100% guaranteed business deals, we realize the 17th Amendment fell short of its intended prevention and replaced it with something much worse. We need to fix it and get rid of this government-as-god crap that is being foisted on America by groups interested only in lining their pockets with tax money the American people pay, salving their miserable guilt complex by ensuring the lowest 47% pay no taxes to get them elected to help themselves to more for themselves and their inner circle on "rich people's money" for which they have nothing but disrespect.
> 
> They're leeches. It's time to clean the pond.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But do you trust your state legislatures to appoint the right person, or will they just fill them with cronies, too?
> 
> No, I don't think Yanks are naive, but as for being patronising, of course, you weren't being like that towards me, were you?
> 
> *The rest of your post is generalised clap trap with nothing much solid to back it up with..*
Click to expand...

I don't patronize anybody who doesn't patronize me first. I reserve the right of return fire in the face of repeated assault of being disparaged (see bolded type above).

I lived in the Equality state most of my adult life, and my US Senator was a personal friend who served on a church board with my husband. My US Representative was my neighborhood friend. Yes, I know who they are, I knew them for years, I trust them because they are salt of the earth type people who disciplined themselves conservatively. And I know they trust me for my fairness, willingness to learn, persistence in the face of adversity, not to mention hard work and sacrifice for others. If you think that's naivety, that is not my headache that we are culturally dissimilar.

We don't have to have a government of frills. All that having tax money extracted out of 50% of the people while 50% don't pay puts a burden like no other on successful people to fail.

There are other options than making changes that could help us get out of debt if irresponsible people keep spending money like drunken sailors.

What would you do in our place?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

freedombecki said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No doubt they had some problems. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't much of a solution, either.
> 
> You probably were taught that Americans are naive and that you should patronize them at every opportunity, great or small.
> 
> Over here, we have public pow wows, and with certain people in Congress diverting billions of dollars to their own families with 100% guaranteed business deals, we realize the 17th Amendment fell short of its intended prevention and replaced it with something much worse. We need to fix it and get rid of this government-as-god crap that is being foisted on America by groups interested only in lining their pockets with tax money the American people pay, salving their miserable guilt complex by ensuring the lowest 47% pay no taxes to get them elected to help themselves to more for themselves and their inner circle on "rich people's money" for which they have nothing but disrespect.
> 
> They're leeches. It's time to clean the pond.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But do you trust your state legislatures to appoint the right person, or will they just fill them with cronies, too?
> 
> No, I don't think Yanks are naive, but as for being patronising, of course, you weren't being like that towards me, were you?
> 
> *The rest of your post is generalised clap trap with nothing much solid to back it up with..*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't patronize anybody who doesn't patronize me first. I reserve the right of return fire in the face of repeated assault of being disparaged (see bolded type above).
> 
> I lived in the Equality state most of my adult life, and my US Senator was a personal friend who served on a church board with my husband. My US Representative was my neighborhood friend. Yes, I know who they are, I knew them for years, I trust them because they are salt of the earth type people who disciplined themselves conservatively. And I know they trust me for my fairness, willingness to learn, persistence in the face of adversity, not to mention hard work and sacrifice for others. If you think that's naivety, that is not my headache that we are culturally dissimilar.
> 
> We don't have to have a government of frills. All that having tax money extracted out of 50% of the people while 50% don't pay puts a burden like no other on successful people to fail.
> 
> There are other options than making changes that could help us get out of debt if irresponsible people keep spending money like drunken sailors.
> 
> What would you do in our place?
Click to expand...


Its not a matter of being culturally dissimilar, millions of Americans disagree with you as well. 

What you advocate is not only naïve, its reactionary  a fantasy of an idealized American past that never existed to begin with.


----------



## JakeStarkey

I would thank all who believe we should revert to pre-17th Amendment days take a good hard look at Utah.  Think about its lege appointing Senators.  They would be to the right of Orly Taitz.

No one has made even a poor case for reversion on the issue.


----------



## Oddball

Bigoted much?

Everyone in Utah isn't Orly Taitz or Warren Jeffs, numbnutz.


----------



## del

fabian socialist statist herpaderp


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oddball said:


> Bigoted much?  Everyone in Utah isn't Orly Taitz or Warren Jeffs, numbnutz.


  Why are you a hater, Oddball?  The GOP machine and the lege is hard shell right wing doofus. You know that, so, yes, you are hating on those who tell the truth.  Get over it: the truth telling won't stop.


----------



## Oddball

JakeStarkey said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bigoted much?  Everyone in Utah isn't Orly Taitz or Warren Jeffs, numbnutz.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you a hater, Oddball?  The GOP machine and the lege is hard shell right wing doofus. You know that, so, yes, you are hating on those who tell the truth.  Get over it: the truth telling won't stop.
Click to expand...

I'm not the douchebag who tried to paint all people from Utah with the same broad bigoted brush, douchebag bigot.


----------



## JakeStarkey

"*all people from Utah* with the same bigoted brush" Oddball wrote

"The *GOP machine and the lege *is hard shell right wing" I wrote

You are so easy to demonstrate as a partisan hack doofus, Oddball


----------



## JakeStarkey

Same argument of bias applies to NY and CA leges.

No one in 13 pages has given any demonstrable, critical reasoning to reverse the 17th.


----------



## Oddball

JakeStarkey said:


> Same argument of bias applies to NY and CA leges.
> 
> No one in 13 pages has given any demonstrable, critical reasoning to reverse the 17th.


Yes they have...You just ignore it.


----------



## BakshisMouse

JakeStarkey said:


> Same argument of bias applies to NY and CA leges.
> 
> No one in 13 pages has given any demonstrable, critical reasoning to reverse the 17th.



Except for me.



And even I am not that enthusiastic about my position.


----------



## BakshisMouse

freedombecki said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for making my case, Dr. Grump. Their senators would be all about THEIR OWN STATE, and not somebody else's state. If the state objected too much to the errant Senator from their state who failed to help their state's governmental issue, they would immediately prepare to put in a better head on Thinktank Hill. Thanks for the assist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if you really think that, then you are naive. Was that the way it was prior to 1910?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No doubt they had some problems. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't much of a solution, either.
> 
> You probably were taught that Americans are naive and that you should patronize them at every opportunity, great or small.
> 
> Over here, we have public pow wows, and with certain people in Congress diverting billions of dollars to their own families with 100% guaranteed business deals, we realize the 17th Amendment fell short of its intended prevention and replaced it with something much worse. We need to fix it and get rid of this government-as-god crap that is being foisted on America by groups interested only in lining their pockets with tax money the American people pay, salving their miserable guilt complex by ensuring the lowest *47% pay no taxes to* get them elected to help themselves to more for themselves and their inner circle on "rich people's money" for which they have nothing but disrespect.
> 
> They're leeches. It's time to clean the pond.
Click to expand...


If I may expound:

Those people whose incomes are low enough to not pay progressive income tax sure are lucky!

Why, might quit trying to find a job and just live on food stamps, unemployment for the rest of my life! I'll even have a tv and cable! I'll won't even be strapped for anything I want.

Using my welfare cell phone:

"Hey master pimp Obama! Can I get some bling up in this ghetto project bitch! I need some hos!"

"Sure thing, my fine motherfucker! I'll just skim from Warren Buffet's fortune! He's down with the thugs!"

^^^^^

That's probably more or less what you imagine poverty in America to be like.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oddball said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Same argument of bias applies to NY and CA leges.
> 
> No one in 13 pages has given any demonstrable, critical reasoning to reverse the 17th.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes they have...You just ignore it.
Click to expand...


You keep insisting on a fabrication of argument for repealing the 17th.  And here is what you ignored and all will see why when they read it.

_"all people from Utah with the same bigoted brush" Oddball wrote

"The GOP machine and the lege is hard shell right wing" I wrote

You are so easy to demonstrate as a partisan hack doofus, Oddball_


----------



## JDzBrain

JakeStarkey said:


> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The needs of the state are expressed to the Senator by the majority vote.  You are not going to get fiscally responsible senators who are beholden to the majority party in the state senate.
> 
> Unlike OddOne, you tried to make a case.
> 
> 
> 
> . . . . Repealing the 17th is the ONLY sure way to get the electorate engaged in local and state politics and clean up that FREAKIN' MESS in Washington.  It HAS to start at the local level!. . . .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, well, well . . . a call for an inverse populism to revert control of the Senators from We the People to the controlled interests in the state leges.
> 
> Your argumentation fails.
Click to expand...

Ok...let me get this straight.  You actually believe that YOU and the voters of your state...IF you are actually in America...have control over your Senator?  LMFAOff!!!!!!!

THAT is the most nonsensical, rose tent view of the world that I've heard in YEARS!

Let's see, I'm not sure WHERE "in the mainstream" that you list as your location is, but I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that your "mainstream" Senators are at LEAST a million dollars richer than they were before they took office.  And likely SEVERAL millions richer if they serve more than one term.  And I'll bet a MILLION that it didn't come from YOU!

You as a voter do NOT control them.  Hell, you don't even elect them.  Their IMAGE is elected and THAT has only just started to change over the last couple years with the involvement of the TEA Party.  

They don't fear ya, they don't respect ya, they are not looking out for your interest and they DAMN sure ain't looking out for the interest of your state!

In short...YOU FAIL!

You fail to grasp the complexity of the problem, fail to grasp the concept the founders intended and fail to grasp the depths to which the system has sank since the passage of the 17th Amendment.  That...or you know and are just a willing shill for progressive movement.

Either way...FAIL!


----------



## JDzBrain

del said:


> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost as interesting as watching some asshat flail aimlessly because the light of a whole truth burns away the fog of a partial lie!
> 
> Strangely, NOT as interesting as watching some asshat ask someone who has been dead for 200 years what they meant would be!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> perhaps you should try again in english and perhaps with a tad less pretension?
Click to expand...

LOL...yeah, well.  You know, they DO offer reading comprehension courses free of charge at most community colleges and high school annexes.  

Have you ever considered looking into it?  ;~0


----------



## JDzBrain

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Its not a matter of being culturally dissimilar, millions of Americans disagree with you as well.
> 
> What you advocate is not only naïve, its reactionary  a fantasy of an idealized American past that never existed to begin with.


Yeah...you know what the good thing is?  Even though there may be a few million that disagree with Becki, there are a couple HUNDRED MILLION that AGREE!!!

Nealy 70%...that would be well over 200 million Americans...say that the government is out of control!

Passing the 17th Amendment was a knee jerk reactionary move.  Repealing it would be the correction of a MISTAKE.  

Claiming responsibility for the welfare of a state's citizens back to the state...where it had ALWAYS resided...and retaining the state's resources and the wealth of a state's citizen IN THE STATE is reclaiming this country to it's founding.  

It's the way this country functioned for nearly 200 years and the usurping of those states rights by the progressive movement is the fantasy.  The unwashed masses of America are waking up and we ain't gonna allow it...period!


----------



## del

^
delusional tea loon


----------



## JDzBrain

del said:


> ^
> delusional tea loon


^
Intellectually stunted liberal troll, reporting from momma's basement!

By the way...I was a constitutional conservative before you were even a twinkle in your daddy's eye.  The "tea loon" movement is just now catching up to us.  And just so there is no mistake...there are a HELL of a lot more of us than there are of you liberal/progressive/socialist types!

Denial is more than just a river in Egypt.  Better start looking for that dark corner to scurry back in to!


----------



## del

^

tea loon with delusions of intelligence and access to an endless supply of tired cliches.



rock on, loon


----------



## 007

rightwinger said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why split hairs?
> 
> We don't need militias any more. Let's repeal the second amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure....let's leave everything up to the government to decide, let them decide what's best for us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gun rights should be determined at the state level
> 
> Nation defense is provided by our armed services, militias are not needed
Click to expand...

Well... guess you've already just made up your mind to bend over and grab your ankles and let the government just ram it to ya, no matter if it's tyranny or not, hell ya, we should never fight back or have anything to fight back with. We should just TAKE IT!

No, we shouldn't. Glad your fucked up opinion is the minority.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JDzBrain said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . . . Repealing the 17th is the ONLY sure way to get the electorate engaged in local and state politics and clean up that FREAKIN' MESS in Washington.  It HAS to start at the local level!. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> Well, well, well . . . a call for an inverse populism to revert control of the Senators from We the People to the controlled interests in the state leges.
> 
> Your argumentation fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok...let me get this straight.  You actually believe that YOU and the voters of your state...IF you are actually in America...have control over your Senator?  LMFAOff!!!!!!!   THAT is the most nonsensical, rose tent view of the world that I've heard in YEARS!  Let's see, I'm not sure WHERE "in the mainstream" that you list as your location is, but I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that your "mainstream" Senators are at LEAST a million dollars richer than they were before they took office.  And likely SEVERAL millions richer if they serve more than one term.  And I'll bet a MILLION that it didn't come from YOU!   You as a voter do NOT control them.  Hell, you don't even elect them.  Their IMAGE is elected and THAT has only just started to change over the last couple years with the involvement of the TEA Party.    They don't fear ya, they don't respect ya, they are not looking out for your interest and they DAMN sure ain't looking out for the interest of your state!  In short...YOU FAIL!
> You fail to grasp the complexity of the problem, fail to grasp the concept the founders intended and fail to grasp the depths to which the system has sank since the passage of the 17th Amendment.  That...or you know and are just a willing shill for progressive movement.  Either way...FAIL!
Click to expand...


You do not grasp the problem at all, friend.  You have made no case to change the system.  Your path would merely have the The state parties will control the Senate, not the will of the people.


----------



## MuadDib

JakeStarkey said:


> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, well, well . . . a call for an inverse populism to revert control of the Senators from We the People to the controlled interests in the state leges.
> 
> Your argumentation fails.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok...let me get this straight.  You actually believe that YOU and the voters of your state...IF you are actually in America...have control over your Senator?  LMFAOff!!!!!!!   THAT is the most nonsensical, rose tent view of the world that I've heard in YEARS!  Let's see, I'm not sure WHERE "in the mainstream" that you list as your location is, but I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that your "mainstream" Senators are at LEAST a million dollars richer than they were before they took office.  And likely SEVERAL millions richer if they serve more than one term.  And I'll bet a MILLION that it didn't come from YOU!   You as a voter do NOT control them.  Hell, you don't even elect them.  Their IMAGE is elected and THAT has only just started to change over the last couple years with the involvement of the TEA Party.    They don't fear ya, they don't respect ya, they are not looking out for your interest and they DAMN sure ain't looking out for the interest of your state!  In short...YOU FAIL!
> You fail to grasp the complexity of the problem, fail to grasp the concept the founders intended and fail to grasp the depths to which the system has sank since the passage of the 17th Amendment.  That...or you know and are just a willing shill for progressive movement.  Either way...FAIL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not grasp the problem at all, friend.  You have made no case to change the system.  Your path would merely have the The state parties will control the Senate, not the will of the people.
Click to expand...


How is the Senate acting on the will of the people now?


----------



## JakeStarkey

How will your system rectify the "problem" now?  Give it back to state political parties?  I think not.


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> How will your system rectify the "problem" now?  Give it back to state political parties?  I think not.



Senators are supposed to represent the interests of each state, so giving state parties control is exactly the point, dipshit.


----------



## JakeStarkey

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> How will your system rectify the "problem" now?  Give it back to state political parties?  I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senators are supposed to represent the interests of each state, so giving state parties control is exactly the point, _[I admit I am a] _dipshit.
Click to expand...


So the corruption, according to you, will be done at the state party level.

John C. Calhoun would have loved your support in 1850.


----------



## JDzBrain

JakeStarkey said:


> You do not grasp the problem at all, friend.  You have made no case *to change the system*.  Your path would merely have the The state parties will control the Senate, not the will of the people.


See...this is EXACTLY what you don't seem to grasp.  Repealing the 17th Amendment would NOT be CHANGING the system.  It is RESTORING the system.  It was changed in a DAMAGING manner in 1918 with passage of the 17th!

The case for changing it was based on a faulty assertion back then and the case for keeping it is based on THE SAME STINKIN' THINKIN'!!!


----------



## JDzBrain

JakeStarkey said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> How will your system rectify the "problem" now?  Give it back to state political parties?  I think not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senators are supposed to represent the interests of each state, so giving state parties control is exactly the point, _[I admit I am a] _dipshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So the corruption, according to you, will be done at the state party level.
> 
> John C. Calhoun would have loved your support in 1850.
Click to expand...

Since corruption is a FACT OF LIFE in politics...I prefer to have is at the LOCAL level where we the people can MAKE THEM PAY and a bunch of liberal LOONS can't INFLICT their insanity on the entire nation.  

So YES...I prefer my corruption at the local level!!!


----------



## American Horse

JDzBrain said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Senators are supposed to represent the interests of each state, so giving state parties control is exactly the point, _[I admit I am a] _dipshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the corruption, according to you, will be done at the state party level.
> 
> John C. Calhoun would have loved your support in 1850.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since corruption is a FACT OF LIFE in politics...I prefer to have is at the LOCAL level where we the people can MAKE THEM PAY and a bunch of liberal LOONS can't INFLICT their insanity on the entire nation.
> 
> So YES...I prefer my corruption at the local level!!!
Click to expand...


Exactly right!  Down where we can do something about it and rely on our local media to expose it so that we can.


----------



## del




----------



## JakeStarkey

American Horse said:


> JDzBrain said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the corruption, according to you, will be done at the state party level.
> 
> John C. Calhoun would have loved your support in 1850.
> 
> 
> 
> Since corruption is a FACT OF LIFE in politics...I prefer to have is at the LOCAL level where we the people can MAKE THEM PAY and a bunch of liberal LOONS can't INFLICT their insanity on the entire nation.
> 
> So YES...I prefer my corruption at the local level!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly right!  Down where we can do something about it and rely on our local media to expose it so that we can.
Click to expand...


Like they did not before the 17th was ratified.

Guys, please give us one compelling reason, which has not been done yet.


----------



## American Horse

And where we can hold our local media responsible, because it's a lead-pipe-cinch we can't hold the national media resposnsible for doing their jobs


----------



## JakeStarkey

Now the problem is the national media not corruption in politics at the national and the state levels?


----------



## American Horse

JakeStarkey said:


> Now the problem is the national media not corruption in politics at the national and the state levels?



The citizenry will only object to corruption problems they are aware of.  National media covers corruption selectively.  Local media has much less an option of treating corruption that way, and even without their doing that responsibly, people find out and take appropriate action.  In the case of US senators, when the state legislature changes, then the option is renewed to throw out one of them.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Were the local media failing before the 17th?  Or was the national media?

And there is not verifiable evidence for your assertion, American Horse.


----------



## midcan5

The 17th amendment gives power back to the people of the state, why this is still debated is absurd to me given important issues that are never discussed. When the do nothing congress does something we can then take them serious. I can just picture some of the loonies state houses would select - you gotta be kidding or lost in mental guerrilla warfare with the federal government if you think repeal makes any sense.


----------



## American Horse

JakeStarkey said:


> Were the local media failing before the 17th?  Or was the national media?
> 
> And there is not verifiable evidence for your assertion, American Horse.



To all but those with bias as filters it is obvious


----------



## JakeStarkey

American Horse said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Were the local media failing before the 17th?  Or was the national media?
> 
> And there is not verifiable evidence for your assertion, American Horse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To all but those with bias as filters it is obvious
Click to expand...


Sigh.  AH, your assertion is not evidence.  Please give us verifiable evidence, or your assertion is simply that, nothing more, and certainly no reason to change the 17th.


----------



## JDzBrain

JakeStarkey said:


> Like they did not before the 17th was ratified.
> 
> Guys, *please give us one compelling reason*, which has not been done yet.


I've said it before, but apparently I was too subtle in my statement of it.  

*THE INTERNET!!!!*

Is that clear enough for ya?  The difference between today and 1918 is the INTERNET!

Politicians and the drive by media are getting their ASSES handed to them by the internet, talk radio, 24 hour news outlets...the INFORMATION AGE.  They can't get away with squat and THEY DON'T LIKE IT!

Why...over the last 6 years since democrats took over Congress, do you think that this "fairness" doctrine over internet content has come up more than a dozen times.  Hell...Obama asked for a freakin' OFF switch for the internet!

Just do a google search for Acorn fraud.  Over 5 MILLION hits.  Do one for 90 thousand dollars in the freezer and see what you get.  Nearly 6 MILLION hits.  Did you hear about William Jefferson's cold hard cash from the main stream media?  Bet NOT!

Dude, you are not grasping the true genius behind the way the founders set the system up, the HELL that the 17th amendment has inflicted on our system OR the impact that the repeal of the amendment, combined with the information age would have on cleaning up politics in this country.

Apparently, some of you guys WANT this country to become Greece, Spain, France or one of those shinning examples of political process, where bribery and payola is not only acceptable...but EXPECTED!

I, for one, do NOT!!!


----------



## JakeStarkey

JDzBrain said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like they did not before the 17th was ratified.
> 
> Guys, *please give us one compelling reason*, which has not been done yet.
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before, but apparently I was too subtle in my statement of it.
> 
> *THE INTERNET!!!!*
> 
> Is that clear enough for ya?  The difference between today and 1918 is the INTERNET!
> 
> Politicians and the drive by media are getting their ASSES handed to them by the internet, talk radio, 24 hour news outlets...the INFORMATION AGE.  They can't get away with squat and THEY DON'T LIKE IT!
> 
> Why...over the last 6 years since democrats took over Congress, do you think that this "fairness" doctrine over internet content has come up more than a dozen times.  Hell...Obama asked for a freakin' OFF switch for the internet!
> 
> Just do a google search for Acorn fraud.  Over 5 MILLION hits.  Do one for 90 thousand dollars in the freezer and see what you get.  Nearly 6 MILLION hits.  Did you hear about William Jefferson's cold hard cash from the main stream media?  Bet NOT!
> 
> Dude, you are not grasping the true genius behind the way the founders set the system up, the HELL that the 17th amendment has inflicted on our system OR the impact that the repeal of the amendment, combined with the information age would have on cleaning up politics in this country.
> 
> Apparently, some of you guys WANT this country to become Greece, Spain, France or one of those shinning examples of political process, where bribery and payola is not only acceptable...but EXPECTED!
> 
> I, for one, do NOT!!!
Click to expand...


That's your opinion, it is garbled and confused in your reasoning, and makes absolutely no compelling argument for change.

End of story.


----------



## JDzBrain

JakeStarkey said:


> That's your opinion, it is garbled and confused in your reasoning, and makes absolutely *no compelling argument for change.*
> 
> End of story.


IT'S NOT CHANGE....IT'S RESTORATION!!!!!!!!!!

Damn!

The founders intended it to work that way.  State reps electing Senators caused the voters of the states to be INVESTED in the local and state elections and FORCED Senators to represent the interest of the state representatives that sends them in order to keep their job.  And the stiinkin' thinkin' of "corrupt state representatives" sending corrupt Senators is completely offset by the ability of the citizens of the states to track and hold to account their state representatives BECAUSE OF THE INFORMATION AGE.

There is NOTHING confused or muddled about that.  The only thing that is confused or muddle is how people continuously harp about how the world has change and the Constitution was written over 200 years ago refuse to accept that those very changes...like the internet...make the principles set forth in the Constitution even more important and EASIER to maintain!  

THAT'S the end of the story.


----------



## JakeStarkey

JDzBrain said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your opinion, it is garbled and confused in your reasoning, and makes absolutely *no compelling argument for change.*
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> IT'S NOT CHANGE....IT'S RESTORATION!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Damn!
> 
> The founders intended it to work that way.  State reps electing Senators caused the voters of the states to be INVESTED in the local and state elections and FORCED Senators to represent the interest of the state representatives that sends them in order to keep their job.  And the stiinkin' thinkin' of "corrupt state representatives" sending corrupt Senators is completely offset by the ability of the citizens of the states to track and hold to account their state representatives BECAUSE OF THE INFORMATION AGE.
> 
> There is NOTHING confused or muddled about that.  The only thing that is confused or muddle is how people continuously harp about how the world has change and the Constitution was written over 200 years ago refuse to accept that those very changes...like the internet...make the principles set forth in the Constitution even more important and EASIER to maintain!
> 
> THAT'S the end of the story.
Click to expand...


Nope, you are wrong.  You have given no compelling reason whatsoever.  The development of The Information Age gives each voter the opportunity to become fully vested in the issues of the day and makes that voter far more reliable in voting for Senators than the hacks of a Senate party.


----------



## JDzBrain

Ok...so the TEA Party (EXCLUSIVELY founded and driven by the internet) doesn't exist, the Occupy Movement (founded and organized over the internet FROM CANADA) never happened, the USMB does not exist, The THOUSANDS of Town Hall Forums don't exist, Huffington Post is a hard copy "news" journal...not a left wing internet rag, Center for American Progress is brick and mortar political action org...NOT, Obama didn't carry a Blackberry to tweet Barry's day when he ran for pres and on and on and on.  Yep...your right.  The internet is not having ANY effect on the political face of this country....WRONG!

Dude, this discussion is obviously done.  'Nunt nuh' and 'is not' are NOT convincing arguments.  They are the responses of those without a base to support their position.  The last vestige of those who would ask you to prove a negative by asking you, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

And in all honesty, I've addressed every aspect of this with a to b to c logic...and you still claim not.  THAT...is the same as nunt nuh!


----------



## JakeStarkey

1) I *never *said that "The internet is not having ANY effect on the political face of this country. . . ."., so stop lying.  (2) The internet age means that an informed We the People can make better decisions than our state legislatures.  (3) The Information Age, _ipso facto_, does not require the 17th to be changed.  No compelling reason has been given.  (


----------



## MuadDib

midcan5 said:


> The 17th amendment gives power back to the people of the state, why this is still debated is absurd to me given important issues that are never discussed. When the do nothing congress does something we can then take them serious. I can just picture some of the loonies state houses would select - you gotta be kidding or lost in mental guerrilla warfare with the federal government if you think repeal makes any sense.



The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Until the Constitution was amended, and that was what was intended and has been for almost 100 years.  Nothing before it now counts.


----------



## del

MuadDib said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 17th amendment gives power back to the people of the state, why this is still debated is absurd to me given important issues that are never discussed. When the do nothing congress does something we can then take them serious. I can just picture some of the loonies state houses would select - you gotta be kidding or lost in mental guerrilla warfare with the federal government if you think repeal makes any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.
Click to expand...


i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.


----------



## MuadDib

del said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 17th amendment gives power back to the people of the state, why this is still debated is absurd to me given important issues that are never discussed. When the do nothing congress does something we can then take them serious. I can just picture some of the loonies state houses would select - you gotta be kidding or lost in mental guerrilla warfare with the federal government if you think repeal makes any sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.
Click to expand...


Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.


----------



## del

MuadDib said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.
Click to expand...


i take it you have an obama sticker on your car


----------



## MuadDib

del said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i take it you have an obama sticker on your car
Click to expand...


Nope! Don't have a Romney sticker either.


----------



## JDzBrain

MuadDib said:


> The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.


Dead right, but he's he's being intellectually dishonest and moving the goal post.  

Typical for those who don't have facts to support their assertions.


----------



## del

MuadDib said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i take it you have an obama sticker on your car
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope! Don't have a Romney sticker either.
Click to expand...


you should get one


----------



## JakeStarkey

MuadDib said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.
Click to expand...


The government never jumped track on the 18th.  We the People and our elected legislators amended the Constitution to create what had become a defect.


----------



## MuadDib

JakeStarkey said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government never jumped track on the 18th.  We the People and our elected legislators amended the Constitution to create what had become a defect.
Click to expand...


The Federal government not only jumped the track, it went off of the bridge and landed in the river on the 18th Amendment. There's absolutely no good reson why a prohibition amendment should have ever been in the Constitution. If the poeple and Congress wanted to prohibit alcohol, it could have been done with a simple Federal statute.

Are there any Constitutional amendments prohibiting marijuana? No.

The 17th and 18th Amendments both were the result of Progressive meddling. Actually, the same can be said for marijuana prohibition.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MuadDib said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The government never jumped track on the 18th.  We the People and our elected legislators amended the Constitution to create what had become a defect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Federal government not only jumped the track, it went off of the bridge and landed in the river on the 18th Amendment. There's absolutely no good reson why a prohibition amendment should have ever been in the Constitution. If the poeple and Congress wanted to prohibit alcohol, it could have been done with a simple Federal statute.
> 
> Are there any Constitutional amendments prohibiting marijuana? No.
> 
> The 17th and 18th Amendments both were the result of Progressive meddling. Actually, the same can be said for marijuana prohibition.
Click to expand...


No, your reasoning is false.  We the People ratified the Amendment, making it imperative for the Government to enforce it.  That is how a constitutional republic works.

That you dislike it is no ground to overturn it.


----------



## MuadDib

JakeStarkey said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government never jumped track on the 18th.  We the People and our elected legislators amended the Constitution to create what had become a defect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal government not only jumped the track, it went off of the bridge and landed in the river on the 18th Amendment. There's absolutely no good reson why a prohibition amendment should have ever been in the Constitution. If the poeple and Congress wanted to prohibit alcohol, it could have been done with a simple Federal statute.
> 
> Are there any Constitutional amendments prohibiting marijuana? No.
> 
> The 17th and 18th Amendments both were the result of Progressive meddling. Actually, the same can be said for marijuana prohibition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your reasoning is false.  We the People ratified the Amendment, making it imperative for the Government to enforce it.  That is how a constitutional republic works.
> 
> That you dislike it is no ground to overturn it.
Click to expand...


I dislike it because it's not working. Where's that budget we've been waiting for from the Senate for the last 3 years?


----------



## JakeStarkey

MuadDib said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Federal government not only jumped the track, it went off of the bridge and landed in the river on the 18th Amendment. There's absolutely no good reson why a prohibition amendment should have ever been in the Constitution. If the poeple and Congress wanted to prohibit alcohol, it could have been done with a simple Federal statute.
> 
> Are there any Constitutional amendments prohibiting marijuana? No.
> 
> The 17th and 18th Amendments both were the result of Progressive meddling. Actually, the same can be said for marijuana prohibition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, your reasoning is false.  We the People ratified the Amendment, making it imperative for the Government to enforce it.  That is how a constitutional republic works.
> 
> That you dislike it is no ground to overturn it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I dislike it because it's not working. Where's that budget we've been waiting for from the Senate for the last 3 years?
Click to expand...


The state legislatures will not stop the likes such as Reid and McConnell being selected and continuing the bickering.


----------



## MuadDib

JakeStarkey said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your reasoning is false.  We the People ratified the Amendment, making it imperative for the Government to enforce it.  That is how a constitutional republic works.
> 
> That you dislike it is no ground to overturn it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dislike it because it's not working. Where's that budget we've been waiting for from the Senate for the last 3 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state legislatures will not stop the likes such as Reid and McConnell being selected and continuing the bickering.
Click to expand...


How do you know this? Do you have a magic crystal ball or something?


----------



## JakeStarkey

SNAP!!!!  Thank you for falling into this.  How do you know that the 17th is not serving the people today, the descendants of We the People who passed it, and how do you know the state legislatures will return the right type of senators if the 17th is repealed?  "Do you have a magic crystal ball or something."

Muaddib, you never made a sensible case that (1) the 17th should never have been ratified, and (2) that it should be abolished now.  You just keep stating that you simply know.


----------



## MuadDib

JakeStarkey said:


> SNAP!!!!  Thank you for falling into this.  How do you know that the 17th is not serving the people today, the descendants of We the People who passed it, and how do you know the state legislatures will return the right type of senators if the 17th is repealed?  "Do you have a magic crystal ball or something."
> 
> Muaddib, you never made a sensible case that (1) the 17th should never have been ratified, and (2) that it should be abolished now.  You just keep stating that you simply know.



Simple! Where is the budget bill? The budget is the most basic function of the legislature. Read Article I of the Constitution.

To balance the budget, Congress is going to have to cut some entitlements that should never have been enacted in the first place. If they cut them, Senators running for reelection are not going to be popular with the voters. Senators appointed by the states wouldn't have to worry about that. It's in the interests of the states for the Feds to get their fiscal houses in order.


----------



## JakeStarkey

MuadDib said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> SNAP!!!!  Thank you for falling into this.  How do you know that the 17th is not serving the people today, the descendants of We the People who passed it, and how do you know the state legislatures will return the right type of senators if the 17th is repealed?  "Do you have a magic crystal ball or something."
> 
> Muaddib, you never made a sensible case that (1) the 17th should never have been ratified, and (2) that it should be abolished now.  You just keep stating that you simply know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple! Where is the budget bill? The budget is the most basic function of the legislature. Read Article I of the Constitution.
> 
> To balance the budget, Congress is going to have to cut some entitlements that should never have been enacted in the first place. If they cut them, Senators running for reelection are not going to be popular with the voters. Senators appointed by the states wouldn't have to worry about that. It's in the interests of the states for the Feds to get their fiscal houses in order.
Click to expand...


Your argument falls on popularity and elections at the state level, which are far more easily rigged.

A massive internet and social media campaign to get a budget bill out of our senators, in lieu of their being elected, would be far more likely.


----------



## MuadDib

JakeStarkey said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> SNAP!!!!  Thank you for falling into this.  How do you know that the 17th is not serving the people today, the descendants of We the People who passed it, and how do you know the state legislatures will return the right type of senators if the 17th is repealed?  "Do you have a magic crystal ball or something."
> 
> Muaddib, you never made a sensible case that (1) the 17th should never have been ratified, and (2) that it should be abolished now.  You just keep stating that you simply know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple! Where is the budget bill? The budget is the most basic function of the legislature. Read Article I of the Constitution.
> 
> To balance the budget, Congress is going to have to cut some entitlements that should never have been enacted in the first place. If they cut them, Senators running for reelection are not going to be popular with the voters. Senators appointed by the states wouldn't have to worry about that. It's in the interests of the states for the Feds to get their fiscal houses in order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument falls on popularity and elections at the state level, which are far more easily rigged.
> 
> A massive internet and social media campaign to get a budget bill out of our senators, in lieu of their being elected, would be far more likely.
Click to expand...


It doesn't fall at all. Senators pre-1910 were statesmen. Why? They were well known to the people and to the legislators that appointed them.

A media campaign is underway and has not proven effective. You can't swing a dead cat without hearing or reading on an almost daily basis how the Senate has not passed a budget in over a thousand days. The Senate is paralyzed by the politics introduced into the process by the 17th Amendment. That's why the Founders set it up the way they did.


----------



## JakeStarkey

No, they were not statesmen.  You have not invalidated the reasons We the People chose to amend the Constitution.  MuadDib the People has one vote, no more.


----------



## Dante

this idiocy still taking up bandwidth?

oy vey


----------



## del

apparently muaddib is arabic for fuckwit

who knew?


----------



## Dante

del said:


> apparently muaddib is arabic for fuckwit
> 
> who knew?



I thought it was Hebe for Sand monkey.

who knew?


----------



## bripat9643

JakeStarkey said:


> No, they were not statesmen.  You have not invalidated the reasons We the People chose to amend the Constitution.  MuadDib the People has one vote, no more.



They amended the Constitution because they were bamboozled by statist demagogues.


----------



## Dante

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were not statesmen.  You have not invalidated the reasons We the People chose to amend the Constitution.  MuadDib the People has one vote, no more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They amended the Constitution because they were bamboozled by statist demagogues.
Click to expand...


what a moron you are.    I'm embarrassed for you


----------



## MuadDib

JakeStarkey said:


> No, they were not statesmen.  You have not invalidated the reasons We the People chose to amend the Constitution.  MuadDib the People has one vote, no more.



I've more than made my case. You'd have to be Progressive pond scum to think the 17th has been good for our government.

Here is a comment on its impact:



> Judge Bybee has argued that the amendment led to the gradual "slide into ignominy" of state legislatures, with the lack of a state-based check on Congress allowing the federal government to supersede states.[2] This was partially fueled by the Senators; he wrote in the Northwestern University Law Review:
> 
> Politics, like nature, abhorred a vacuum, so senators felt the pressure to do something, namely enact laws. Once senators were no longer accountable to and constrained by state legislatures, the maximizing function for senators was unrestrained; senators almost always found in their own interest to procure federal legislation, even to the detriment of state control of traditional state functions.[21]
> 
> Rossum, concurring, gives the New Deal legislation as an early example of the expansion of federal regulation.[44] Ure agrees, saying that not only is each Senator now free to ignore his state's needs, Senators "have incentive to use their advice-and-consent powers to install Supreme Court justices who are inclined to increase federal power at the expense of state sovereignty."[45] Donald J. Kochan, for an article in the Albany Law Review, analyzed the effect of the Seventeenth Amendment on Supreme Court decisions over the constitutionality of state legislation. He found a "statistically significant difference" in the number of cases holding state legislation unconstitutional before and after the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment, with the number of holdings of unconstitutionality increasing sixfold.[46]
> 
> As well as a decline in the influence of the states, Ure also argues that the Seventeenth Amendment led to the rise of special interest groups to fill the void; with citizens replacing state legislators as the Senate's electorate, with citizens being less able to monitor the actions of their Senators, the Senate became more susceptible to pressure from interest groups, who in turn were more influential due to the centralization of power in the federal government; an interest group no longer needed to lobby many state legislatures, and could instead focus its efforts on the federal government.[47] Zywicki agrees with this, but attributes the rise in the strength of interest groups partially to the development of the U.S. economy. The 20th century shifted economic growth to an interstate level, and with the rise of the financial power of a national rather than state-based market, the gains available to those who could tap into the market through the political process increased.[48]
> 
> A comparison of the likely electoral results for the Senate if the Seventeenth Amendment had not been adopted showed that it had "an immediate and dramatic impact on the political composition of the U.S. Senate". Bybee believes that if the Seventeenth Amendment had not been adopted, the 1916 Senate elections, which saw the Democrats retain control of the Senate, would have actually seen the Republicans gain political control with 53 seats.[49] Similarly, he believes the Republican Revolution of 1994 would not have happened; instead, the Democrats would have controlled 70 seats in the Senate to the Republicans' 30.


----------



## Dante

MuadDib said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were not statesmen.  You have not invalidated the reasons We the People chose to amend the Constitution.  MuadDib the People has one vote, no more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've more than made my case. You'd have to be Progressive pond scum to think the 17th has been good for our government.
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

the US Constitution is written for The People, not any particular government.




how embarraskink!!!!


----------



## del

bripat9643 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were not statesmen.  You have not invalidated the reasons We the People chose to amend the Constitution.  MuadDib the People has one vote, no more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They amended the Constitution because they were bamboozled by statist demagogues.
Click to expand...


statist demagogues?

i heard it was fabian socialists


----------



## MuadDib

Dante said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they were not statesmen.  You have not invalidated the reasons We the People chose to amend the Constitution.  MuadDib the People has one vote, no more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've more than made my case. You'd have to be Progressive pond scum to think the 17th has been good for our government.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


the US Constitution is written for The People, not any particular government.




how embarraskink!!!![/QUOTE]

It was written to create the framework of the Federal government and define its relationship to the people.

If we'd get back to it, you'd have a lot less to bitch and whine about.


----------



## del

where do these randian nitwits come from, anyway?


----------



## del

MuadDib said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've more than made my case. You'd have to be Progressive pond scum to think the 17th has been good for our government.
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the US Constitution is written for The People, not any particular government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how embarraskink!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was written to create the framework of the Federal government and define its relationship to the people.
> 
> If we'd get back to it, *you'd have a lot less to bitch and whine about.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only one bitching and whining is you, asshat.
> 
> we're mocking and laughing
> 
> try to keep up, mud dauber
Click to expand...


----------



## MuadDib

del said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was written to create the framework of the Federal government and define its relationship to the people.
> 
> If we'd get back to it, *you'd have a lot less to bitch and whine about.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only one bitching and whining is you, asshat.
> 
> we're mocking and laughing
> 
> try to keep up, mud dauber
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If anyone is showing how little they know about the functioning of republican givernment, it's you, dul.
Click to expand...


----------



## del

MuadDib said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only one bitching and whining is you, asshat.
> 
> we're mocking and laughing
> 
> try to keep up, mud dauber
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone is showing how little they know about the functioning of republican givernment, it's you, dul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yes, that must be it.
Click to expand...


----------



## MuadDib

What makes you think that the current configuration of Congress is working better than the original form?


----------

