# Tea Partiers want to repeal the 17th amendment



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

Sorry, but the Tea Partiers really are crazy. They want to take away our right to vote for our Senators!

Why Repeal 17th Amendment?

They want our Senators to be appointed. Back room deals. Corruption. Great idea. 

So several Republican candidates who are trying to get the Tea Party vote had had to walk back from supporting this stupid idea. 

Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble | TPMDC

Here's a little history about how the 17th amendment came about.



> The amendment says voters get to decide who represents them in the Senate. Before its ratification in 1913, legislatures elected senators.
> 
> As you can imagine, the old system reeked of dealmaking, bribery and corruption.
> 
> ...



http://www.magicvalley.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_8910467b-72b6-5eb0-9df4-143af29432fe.html

And Mark Twain's words pertain to the Tea Party Republican candidates of today, in my opinion.


----------



## jillian (May 18, 2010)

They really are a bunch of nutters.


----------



## 2Parties (May 18, 2010)

lol, like it's not like that now...


----------



## jillian (May 18, 2010)

2Parties said:


> lol, like it's not like that now...



i love the little scoff.... typical.

hint: if it were what the tea nutters want, neither paul nor sestak would have the slightest chance at a senate seat.

you do understand that, right?


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 18, 2010)

The tea baggers are probably some of the most idiotic people on earth.

Wanna know why they want to repeal this amendment?  They listen to Glen Beck.  He don't know shit about the Constitution either.


----------



## WillowTree (May 18, 2010)

demonize demonize demonize,, demonize demonize demonize,, how did you DUmmies get so mean anyway??


----------



## jillian (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?



what constitutes the 'state'? the people of a state? or the state legislature?

you people really are out of control.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> The tea baggers are probably some of the most idiotic people on earth.
> 
> Wanna know why they want to repeal this amendment?  They listen to Glen Beck.  He don't know shit about the Constitution either.



Alright Biker, why was the Senate set up the way it was set up?


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

2Parties said:


> lol, like it's not like that now...



No, it's not like that now. We vote for our Senators now. 

They aren't appointed. They campaign and run for office and we go to the polls and vote for them.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?



Tell me how taking the power away from the people and giving it to the back room dealings is a good thing.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> > lol, like it's not like that now...
> ...



Which, of course, eliminates the States powers to check the Federal Government and thus creates problems on over intrusive government. 

The Senate isn't supposed to represent the people. It's supposed to Represent the States interests.


----------



## Defiant1 (May 18, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> demonize demonize demonize,, demonize demonize demonize,, how did you DUmmies get so mean anyway??



Sinful ways and white guilt consumes them.


----------



## jillian (May 18, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> demonize demonize demonize,, demonize demonize demonize,, how did you DUmmies get so mean anyway??



you don't read your own posts, do you?


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 18, 2010)

The state is it's people.  The legislature is the representation of the people as elected by the people.

But......think about this.........with SCOTUS saying that corporations have the same rights as people and that they can contribute as much as they want, with the repeal of the 17th, corporations would have a very easy way to control the government.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?
> ...



It provides a check on the Federal Governments by the states. and a Check on the majority from creating a tyranical federal government.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> demonize demonize demonize,, demonize demonize demonize,, how did you DUmmies get so mean anyway??



LOL! This is mean? 

This is common sense. 

We see some idiotic morons trying to take away our vote and we oppose the stupidity. 

It's frightening to know there are people who would actually want the 17th amendment to be repealed. 

And you call us mean dummies. 

That's hilarious.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> The state is it's people.  The legislature is the representation of the people as elected by the people.
> 
> But......think about this.........with SCOTUS saying that corporations have the same rights as people and that they can contribute as much as they want, with the repeal of the 17th, corporations would have a very easy way to control the government.



You guys are complaining about that NOW. 

However, if the States had the power. Corporations would have to spend money in 50 states to influence the government rather than in on Senate. 

So in reality, it would hurt the lobbiests.


----------



## EriktheRed (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > The tea baggers are probably some of the most idiotic people on earth.
> ...



Here's another question: why did the people request a change?


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > demonize demonize demonize,, demonize demonize demonize,, how did you DUmmies get so mean anyway??
> ...



What's frightening is that there are people so completely ignorant as to the purpose of the Senate.


----------



## jillian (May 18, 2010)

EriktheRed said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



who's 'the people"? tea party freaks?


----------



## LuckyDan (May 18, 2010)

How do you feel about appointing judges?


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



You think that a rich man like  Montanas William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him before we had the 17th amendment, being a Senator would make a state more powerful?

Crazy shit. Very crazy shit.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

EriktheRed said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Because Progressives played on their emotions and they had limited understanding of why it was set up the way it was. Since then the Government has grown out of control and corruption is even worse now than ever.

Experiment failed. Let's return to the original plan.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...



I think the states controling who was in the Senate would empower the states, yes. If they want to waste their power with corruption, it hurts them more than it hurts the nation at large.


----------



## Dante (May 18, 2010)

I actually think it would not be such a bad idea. 

Your average voter is a nincompoop.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> How do you feel about appointing judges?



Are judges politicians?

This is a strawman. Stick to the topic.


----------



## jillian (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



in other words you want to obstruct the right of the people to voice their own choice

are you really  not capable of seeing what that would do?

how sad.

let me put this in simple terms for you....

what would happen is the majority party of the state legislature would pick one of its boys/girls in the back room... 

that person would be funded by lobbyists for multinational corporations...

you'd then send the person annointed to the senate where they would devise foreign policy on behalf of the multinational corporate lobbyists.

are you all really this vapid?

the real answer is election finance reform... but your hacks in the court decided that corporations are people with first amendment rights.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > How do you feel about appointing judges?
> ...



Yes. Yes they are.



> Politician
> 1 : a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government



Judges certainly conduct the business of government. They have their own branch of government.


----------



## HUGGY (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?



You don't think the lobbiests can find the individual states and the senatorial offices in WDC?

GAAAWWWWDDD!!!!  You people are stupid.   The problem is not HOW the senate gets elected...it is what happens after they get elected.  When are you morons going to wake up and smell the coffee?  You look over there...and over here like that fool Bush joking about WMDs ...and the problem and the answer is staring you right in the face.  The coruption in congress doesn't go there with the elected candidate from either party...IT's ALREADY  THERE WAITING FOR THEM with buckets of money representing special interests.  I would respect the teabaggers if they only had the sense to know who the enemy really is.


----------



## EriktheRed (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Yes, of course....


People are only thinking for themselves when they go along with *conservative* views.


Btw, this idea that "corruption is even worse now than ever" seems pretty subjective. Any actual data to compare now with then?


----------



## LuckyDan (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > How do you feel about appointing judges?
> ...


 
But that's my point. 

If we elected SC Justices they would be political beings (not that many aren't now). If appointment would make Senators less interested in being re-elected till they die, they might be the more deliberative, less political body they were originally meant to be.

I kinda like the idea, now that I think of it.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

jillian said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...



I want to restore the check the States had on both the Federal Government and the majority. 

There are three groups involved - Federal - State - People. Our nation worked when we had each of those groups checking the other one.

However, because we've eliminated the check the States have, they have lost significant power. And the power doesn't go to the people, it goes to the Federal Government.

The people are supposed to be represented in the House. The States in the Senate. It was designed this way specifically so we could have the appropriate checks on every group.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



LOL!! Waste their power? It doesn't hurt them, it makes them rich if some billionaire can pay them to appoint him to the Senate. 

Are you in favor of what Blagovitch tried to do? He was going to appoint someone to a Senate seat for money. 

That's exactly what would happen if the 17th amendment was repealed. 

Are teabaggers in support of that scumbag Blago?



Awesome.


----------



## jillian (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



no you don't want to restore anything. you want to fix elections and go back to the days when the landed gentry ran the country.

and that might be the most self-defeating most ignorant thing i've ever seen anyone want in politics... 

unless, of course, you're worth a billion dollars or two.


----------



## LuckyDan (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...


 
And it would still be illegal.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...



They would do the bidding (even worse than elected Senators do now) of the lobby that bought them their seat. 

At least now, if a Senator does stuff we don't like we can vote them out. If the highest  bidder appoints his man, we have no say. 

We have nothing. 

Now, we have our vote. We can call them up as I've called DiFi many times and tell them, I will not vote for you if you ____________ in fact I will campaign against you. 

Now, we have a voice.

Teabag kooks want to take that away from us.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

EriktheRed said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...



Alright, answer me these questions:

When did the Federal Government ever run a deficit over trillions of dollars before the Senate was taken from the States?

When were earmarks a problem before the Senate was taken from the States?

When people are directly elected, lobbyists have more power to influence them because the politicians need money to run their campaigns. When the Senate is chosen by the people, the lobbyists can't directly contribute Senators campaigns. In order to buy a Senator, they would have to influence all the States officials to appoint said Senator. 

Their influence is weakend. You guys are the ones always complaining about the lobbyists. Restore the Senate, and you will dilute their power significantly.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

jillian said:


> no you don't want to restore anything. you want to fix elections and go back to the days when the landed gentry ran the country.
> 
> and that might be the most self-defeating most ignorant thing i've ever seen anyone want in politics...
> 
> unless, of course, you're worth a billion dollars or two.



That's the strangest thing about teabaggers and Republicans. They constantly vote against their own interests. 


It's brainwashing of the highest order. Maybe Glenn Beck has magic hypnotising eyes. I can't watch him long enough to get sucked in I guess. He starts crying or acting psychotic and I have to turn the channel.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Was it illegal in 1899 before the 17th amendment was added? 

Didn't you click any of my links?


----------



## jillian (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > no you don't want to restore anything. you want to fix elections and go back to the days when the landed gentry ran the country.
> ...



it's cute how they let a rodeo clown 'entertainer' manipulate them. or it would be if the loons weren't all out there.


----------



## WillowTree (May 18, 2010)

jillian said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?
> ...



you people..


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

I find this so amazing that you people have such a difficulty understanding this:

We aren't supposed to have the power to elect Senators. It was designed for the States do this. And it was designed for a very good reason. We are supposed to have influence through the House.


----------



## WillowTree (May 18, 2010)

jillian said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



take the blue pill.. you need it.


----------



## Oddball (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> That's the strangest thing about teabaggers and Republicans. They constantly vote against their own interests.


That's the strangest thing about Fabian socialist elitist snots....They're really, _*really*_ so haughty to think that they can tell everyone else what's in their best interests.


----------



## WillowTree (May 18, 2010)

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > demonize demonize demonize,, demonize demonize demonize,, how did you DUmmies get so mean anyway??
> ...



why should I read em? I write em.. do you write yours and then have to read them to know what you said?? figures!


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Dude said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > That's the strangest thing about teabaggers and Republicans. They constantly vote against their own interests.
> ...



My best interests would be to restore the checks and balances of this nations so we have less of a chance of losing our freedom to an all powerful Federal Government.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

Dude said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > That's the strangest thing about teabaggers and Republicans. They constantly vote against their own interests.
> ...



So it's haughty to think that protecting your right to vote is in your best interest?

If so, OK, call me haughty.


----------



## Father Time (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?



I like Senate control with the actual people instead of the state legislatures. You think pork is bad now watch what happens when Senators need to appease the state legislatures to keep their job.

Watch what happens when the public can't hold them accountable for not looking out for their best interests.


----------



## American Horse (May 18, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> The state is it's people.  The legislature is the representation of the people as elected by the people.
> 
> But......think about this.........with SCOTUS saying that corporations have the same rights as people and that they can contribute as much as they want, with the repeal of the 17th, corporations would have a very easy way to control the government.



Please describe such a scenario


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...



Your still going to be able to vote. You will still influence the Federal government through the House like you are supposed to.


----------



## LuckyDan (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> LuckyDan said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...


 
They would be appointed by the state legislature, not normally considered to be a "lobby."

_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._

In theory, the legislators would be you and I, or our neighbors, who ran for and were elected to serve in that capacity - citizen legislators. 

Why so cynical?


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> I find this so amazing that you people have such a difficulty understanding this:
> 
> We aren't supposed to have the power to elect Senators. It was designed for the States do this. And it was designed for a very good reason. We are supposed to have influence through the House.





> The Seventeenth Amendment was one of the critical reforms of the Progressive Era, along with enfranchising women; empowering voters with the direct primary election, initiative, referendum and recall, and establishing antitrust laws.



EDITORIAL: Repeal 17th Amendment? You've gotta be kidding


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?
> ...



They are supposed to appease the State legislatures to keep their jobs. The Senate is designed to be the check that the states have over the Federal Government.


----------



## Father Time (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



We all ready have a court system for that, to throw out laws that restrict the individual's rights.


----------



## Oddball (May 18, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?
> ...


Wrong-o!

With Senators appointed by the state legislatures, the states will once again have a say-so in the size of federal budgets....States can't just print up money like the feds can.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > I find this so amazing that you people have such a difficulty understanding this:
> ...



Yeah, it was a progressive program. Which has completely screwed up this nation.

In fact, the only progressive amendment I don't have a problem with is the one allowing women to vote, since it was long overdue.


----------



## jillian (May 18, 2010)

ohhhhhh... you think it's a states' rights thing and you get around the supremacy of the feds this way?

raflmao...


----------



## Oddball (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...


You're haughty....And arrogant...And ignorant...All rolled into one.

Happy now?


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...



That's not what the Court was designed for. It's what the Senate was designed for. And allow the States to prevent the Federal government from overpowering them.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

Dude said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



OK, if that describes a patriotic American who wants to keep her right to vote, fine. 

Thanks!


----------



## my2¢ (May 18, 2010)

I don't buy the argument that the repeal will enhance states' rights in any way but symbolic, still I wouldn't lose any sleep over the change.  I did a quick search on the history of the amendment and came across this: 

After the Civil War, problems in senatorial elections by the state legislatures multiplied. In one case in the late 1860s, the election of Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton based his defense on the observation that not all states elected their senators in the same way, and presented a report that illustrated the inconsistency in state elections of senators. In response, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when senators were elected in each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections created by the Founders. The law helped but did not entirely solve the problem, and deadlocks in some legislatures continued to cause long vacancies in some Senate seats. 

Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years. 

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Institutional Development > Direct Election of Senators


----------



## Oddball (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...


It describes an ignoramus with no insight on dual sovereignty and how & why the various branches of federal apparatus were set up to operate.

That's OK...I run into it every day.


----------



## Father Time (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Do you consider the one repealing alcohol to be progressive (I ask because seemingly no one is able to agree on it)?


----------



## AllieBaba (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> 2Parties said:
> 
> 
> > lol, like it's not like that now...
> ...



Seems to me there was just recently a bit of a scandal involving Obama and his previous Senate seat...


----------



## Father Time (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Let's get one thing straight the Constitution was written with an amendment system to change it. We change it with the 17th amendment and we're supposed to do what our Constitution says.

If you don't like it fine but don't pretend we are breaking some rule by adding an amendment.


----------



## EriktheRed (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Sure, the deficit and earmarks are problems. I still don't see, however, how corruption would necessarily be less. Senators would still be open to bribery and it's not like state representatives are all angels. An extra buffer between the Senators and special interests concerning their election/appointment doesn't mean there still wouldn't be corruption. Hell, corruption is what spawned the push for the amendment in the first place.  You can say "Progressives played on their emotions" all you want, but this didn't happen in a vacuum.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

Dude said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



When you look in the mirror! 

You're just making a fool of yourself by choosing to discuss me instead of the issue. It makes it look like you don't understand the issue and are too stupid to learn about it so you'd rather just play 2nd grade and mock.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > 2Parties said:
> ...



It seems the tea partiers would be in support of Blago! He wanted to do what was common practice before the 17th amendment. Sell the seat to the highest bidder!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 18, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> The state is it's people.  The legislature is the representation of the people as elected by the people.
> 
> But......think about this.........with SCOTUS saying that corporations have the same rights as people and that they can contribute as much as they want, with the repeal of the 17th, corporations would have a very easy way to control the government.



I hear this so often from people who don't understand the meaning of those decisions that I know it is a waste of time to try to educate anyone. Let me ask you something instead, just how much control of state legislatures do these evil corporations have? Did you even know that many states do not limit campaign donations from corporations? Take a look at California, which allows corporations to donate as much as they want to any candidate. Which corporation runs California again? Unless you count SEIU as a corporation that is.


----------



## Oddball (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...


I understand the issue just fine.

I also recognize when I've run into committed ignoramuses, who have no historical basis underpinning the issue which they are discussing with such brazen ignorance.

Just sayin'.


----------



## momonkey (May 18, 2010)

Queen said:


> Sorry, but the Tea Partiers really are crazy. They want to take away our right to vote for our Senators!
> 
> Why Repeal 17th Amendment?
> 
> ...





Is any group you disagree with a Tea Party organization?

This one advertises itself as a state's rights group.

States' Liberty Party

I didn't see the words Tea Party used anywhere on their home page.


The other group of "Tea Party" participants are billed as the Union County and Galloway 912 Project. 


You think the process would be less corrupted by money and special interests groups if left as is?

I can't imagine it being more corrupt.


Madison was a nut?

_Section 3.
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.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law._


----------



## jillian (May 18, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I hear this so often from people who don't understand the meaning of those decisions that I know it is a waste of time to try to educate anyone. Let me ask you something instead, just how much control of state legislatures do these evil corporations have? Did you even know that many states do not limit campaign donations from corporations? Take a look at California, which allows corporations to donate as much as they want to any candidate. Which corporation runs California again? Unless you count SEIU as a corporation that is.



why do you think others "don't understand the meaning of those decisions" and what special insight do you think you have that others don't?


----------



## HUGGY (May 18, 2010)

Dude said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Your true colors are shining through.


----------



## Dante (May 18, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > LuckyDan said:
> ...


----------



## AllieBaba (May 18, 2010)

Yeah, he's honest. Scary, I know.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 18, 2010)

Father Time said:


> Let's get one thing straight the Constitution was written with an amendment system to change it. We change it with the 17th amendment and we're supposed to do what our Constitution says.
> 
> If you don't like it fine but don't pretend we are breaking some rule by adding an amendment.



Who said you were breaking a rule by passing an amendment.

I'm arguing that the amendment should be repealed and the Checks and Balances the Founders envisioned should be restored.

We will not lose our say in the Federal Government because our say has always been heard in the House. But if we don't restore the check of the States, we will end up with a totalitarian system.


----------



## Queen (May 18, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Let's get one thing straight the Constitution was written with an amendment system to change it. We change it with the 17th amendment and we're supposed to do what our Constitution says.
> ...



It didn't work. 

That's why they changed it so the people could vote for their Senators. 

Giving up your vote is nuts.


----------



## Avatar4321 (May 19, 2010)

Queen said:


> It didn't work.
> 
> That's why they changed it so the people could vote for their Senators.
> 
> Giving up your vote is nuts.



Vote doesn't mean jack if we remove the checks on the people in power over us.


----------



## Father Time (May 19, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Let's get one thing straight the Constitution was written with an amendment system to change it. We change it with the 17th amendment and we're supposed to do what our Constitution says.
> ...



I thought that's what you were implying by saying we were supposed to do things the old way.

If I read that wrong, I apologize.


----------



## L.K.Eder (May 19, 2010)

Queen said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...




maybe they have a complete trust in state gubmint. and complete mistrust in federal gubmint.


----------



## my2¢ (May 19, 2010)

If the amendment is repealed how will state legislatures decide who to send to Washington as their Senators?  I'd place my 2¢ on the system most states were using to decide the matter before the repeal - through public elections.  Thus if any group wants to bang their head on the wall over this non-issue my suggestion would be: sit back, watch, and enjoy it.


----------



## American Horse (May 19, 2010)

my2¢;2320591 said:
			
		

> I don't buy the argument that the repeal will enhance states' rights in any way but symbolic, still I wouldn't lose any sleep over the change.  I did a quick search on the history of the amendment and came across this:
> 
> After the Civil War, problems in senatorial elections by the state legislatures multiplied. In one case in the late 1860s, the election of Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton based his defense on the observation that not all states elected their senators in the same way, and presented a report that illustrated the inconsistency in state elections of senators. In response, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when senators were elected in each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections created by the Founders. The law helped but did not entirely solve the problem, and deadlocks in some legislatures continued to cause long vacancies in some Senate seats.
> 
> ...



These problems sound aggregious on the face of them, but for some perspective take the last one bolded above: So one of two Delaware US Senators went unappointed for four years after an earlier term.  How is that so bad, if it meant that there was a very close split in the direction the "state's" federal repesentation would take?  It meant that those who understood that representation were debating and reaching a conclusion that took all of four years; meanwhile the Federal Union did not fall apart, just Delaware had only one Senator in Congress while a discussion by their local representatives was had until a decision representative of that state's purposes could be reached.  During that period several local elections took place which enabled the citizens of Delaware to evaluate and make their opinions known through local elections.

Today a senator is ELECTED for 6-years and can practically commit a capital crime, but with the national media's (MSM) bias, and the public's short memory, by the time the next election rolls around the senator has been able to all but wipe his or her record clean, and be re-elected. A similar senator pre-17th amendment would be gone, and the ethical quality raised.

*"...nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906..."?* At least they were brought to a public's conscousness, which is an improvement over what we have today, where bribery takes a lower profile.


----------



## American Horse (May 19, 2010)

EriktheRed said:


> Sure, the deficit and earmarks are problems. I still don't see, however, how corruption would necessarily be less. *Senators would still be open to bribery and it's not like state representatives are all angels*. An extra buffer between the Senators and special interests concerning their election/appointment doesn't mean there still wouldn't be corruption. Hell, corruption is what spawned the push for the amendment in the first place.  You can say "Progressives played on their emotions" all you want, but this didn't happen in a vacuum.



But State reps are much closer to the scrutiny of their electors, and more represent them.  Except in some precincts like Chicago, one has to notice that the lower the echelon of politicians on the political scale, that they are less imbedded in the system, and less vulnerable to elective corruption from outside.  I for one often cross party lines to vote for state representatives and senators because they more share my states/districts political aims than those of my own party do for me;  the higher the echelon (topping out at the US Senatorial level), that willingness to cross over becomes ever more tenuous.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

All throughout the 19th century there were calls for reform on the way  Senators were elected.  It started heavier mid century reaching a peak  in the latter half.  

By 1912, before the Amendment was passed,  more than half the states - 29 states had already been defacto electing  Senators by direct election.

The reason the 17 Amendment was passed  was because, quite clearly, doing it the old way, wasn't working.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

American Horse said:


> my2¢;2320591 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you expect, were it to pass, the partisan infighting within the State  legislatures that often left States  without a Senator for extended  periods of time - like it did before the Amendment  was passed, would not show it's ugly head again?

I think it's naive if you do. History _would_ replay itself.

THAT would be even worse for the respective states, as it would leave  the ones jostling and jousting, as they did before, *completely*  without a voice.

I also bring to your attention the list of Senators in our history who were expelled or censored:

List of United States senators expelled or censured - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JWBooth (May 19, 2010)

Avatar4321 said:


> Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?



The original idea of the Senate was that the states as entities would be represented and the House was to represent the people.  Nothing wrong with returning to that.  It is something I have been an advocate of since before there was a tea party organisation.

Now if we could also get rid of the 16, 19, 21, 23, and 26....


----------



## American Horse (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> THAT would be even worse for the respective states, as it would leave  the ones jostling and jousting, as they did before, *completely*  without a voice.
> 
> I also bring to your attention the list of Senators in our history who were expelled or censored:
> 
> List of United States senators expelled or censured - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



States have two senators, and the shortage of one of those does not leave a state *completely* without a voice.

I looked at your link and, of the senators which were expelled; I'm not sure what you are making of that.  Pre-17th Amend. it appears that if there were more expulsions it was because the senate was less of an "old boys club;" and since the amendment it is more so.  

What would be interesting to tabulate is the length of service in the Senate members before and after, and then relative wealth of the senators compared to the average citizen. I don't think the results would be very positive. 

The senate is not paralyzed when a state has a shortfall of a senator, just that there is an argument going on in a state that needs to be resolved, and it will.  If it goes on long enough the electorate will take notice and solve the problem democratically.  The states are able to solve their problems locally; better IMO than transferring electoral problems to the center of power where they endure for decades.  Unless a senator royally screws up, the voting public pretty well gives them a pass at the next election since they come but once every 6 years.


----------



## Queen (May 19, 2010)

American Horse said:


> *"...nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906..."?* At least they were brought to a public's conscousness, which is an improvement over what we have today, where bribery takes a lower profile.



Not really. Blago's attempt at bribery was very high profile. 

I suppose tea partiers are in support of what Blago did. Because that's how Senators will be appointed if we give up our right to vote for Senator. Give it to the highest bidder. Senators will be lobbyists for special interests and they will have even less reason to do what the people want them to do than they do now. And if the State legislators can't agree on which billionaire to appoint? Let the seat go empty for years. 

Great idea teabaggers!


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

JWBooth said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?
> ...


I fail to see how senators wouldn't be  looking out for state interest,  just because they are directly elected.

And surprise, surprise...a poster who takes up the name of an assassin, wants to repeal the right of women to vote and bring back prohibition.  LOL.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

American Horse said:


> ...
> Unless a senator royally screws up, the voting public pretty well gives them a pass at the next election since they come but once every 6 years.



And how the hell do you think that will be different if you take away the right of the people to vote for senators?


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

Be careful what you wish for connies.

The majority of state legislatures are Democratic.


----------



## HUGGY (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Hey!...  you know what would be fun?   Take a roll of quarters and glue em to the floor of the next Tea Bagger convention!!!


----------



## LuckyDan (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


 
Term limits?

Those worried about 19th century style corruption are also bothered, I assume, by the influence of special interest lobbyists in DC today. 

Repealing the 17th would focus the corruption on interests that serve the state, and present-day access to news and other information regarding the appointees would allow for a more vigilant public, and keep corruption to a minimum. Of course, party machines will still exsist, no matter what. Chicago will always be Chicago.

It would fundamentally transform the Senate into a body that reperesents the states, while the House continues to represent the general populace.

It would bring the 10th amendment back into a play by giving the Senate an incentive to serve state interests, rather than rolling special interests into the DC fold.

As things are, the only difference between the representation we get in the Senate and the representation we get in the House is the length of the terms.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

I repeat:  I fail to see how senators wouldn't be  looking out for state interest,   just because they are directly elected.


----------



## American Horse (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



(Don't get angry - this is just a forum of ideas; we don't change anything here)

Going back to my earlier post where I posited that: " What would be interesting to *tabulate is the length of service in the Senate members before and after*, and then relative wealth of the senators compared to the average citizen. I don't think the results would be very positive."

Tabulating the length of service across the tier of states from Pensylvania to Illinois this is what I found for length of service pre-17th Amendment versus post-17th Amendment (effective 1913)
PA --- went from average 2.75 years to 5.10 years an increase of 85% (5-vacancies); 
OH --- went from average 2.92 years to 4.04 years; an increase of 38% (no vacancies)
IN --- went from average 3.2 years to 5.81 years; an increase of 82% (no vacancies)
IL --- 3.17 years to 4.40 years; an average increase of 39% (no vacancies)


----------



## American Horse (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> I repeat:  I fail to see how senators wouldn't be  looking out for state interest,   just because they are directly elected.



Because they are more inclined to look out for their own interest and appeal to a national media for contributions from outside their states.  

And when a senator votes to support the interests of his own state (the independent oil exploring companies) like Oklahoma's Senator Inhofe, he is trashed by the national media.  

Regardless of what you or I outside of Oklahoma think about the issue, senators should vote the interests of their states, not that one vote will decide the outcome, but that one vote and the power of one senator can cause reconsideration so that the states interests can be accommodated.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

American Horse said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...


Where the heck are you getting these figures from?
What is the time frame you are referring to?  Since our first elections to now?

How can the "average years" for senator from PA, for example, be 2.75 years?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 19, 2010)

Queen said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?
> ...


The Senate was designed to be a bulwark to populism and a method to SLOW legislation.  Currently all senators are slaves to special interests based on who got them elected.  They have long forgotten they are supposed to be representative of their STATE'S interests, not their supporters.

Corruption back then still exists today, just in different guises.  Our founding fathers were much smarter than we give them credit for in this regard, and this would be about as corrupt as we currently see in appointing judges to the bench.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

American Horse said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I repeat:  I fail to see how senators wouldn't be  looking out for state interest,   just because they are directly elected.
> ...


You're out of your mind if you think it will change because the legislature elects them.

We tried the old way.  It didn't work.

Period.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

> Currently all senators are slaves to special interests based on who got  them elected.



And you think this will be different when it's not the people who elect them, but the state legislatures.  

Uhhh-huuhhhh.

What kind of world do you live in?


----------



## American Horse (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


My method was to go to each states list of us senators and tally them from the first senatorial office holder.  Pa's was first in 1789, I  counted office holders in each class, divided the number of years (PA) between 1789 and 1913.  I made the same calculation for officeholders from 1913 to 2010.  I did the same for each of the other states.

For your question about 2.75 years, because there are two classes (PA has Class I and III) and I counted all officeholders in both classes, counting vacancies (only PA of the 4 had vacancies), combined them to get an average for the purpose of getting a comparison. Take out the vacancy periods and PA becomes 124 years/39 Different named senators = 3.18 years each, and still a 60% increase.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

American Horse said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...


Huh?

U.S. Senate: Senators Home > State Information > Pennsylvania

I still don't see how you arrive at those figures.


----------



## American Horse (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Very well, from your link there were a total in both classes  of 38 (I previously counted 39 from a different link) office holding senators between 1789 and 1913 which is 124 years.  
124 years divided by 38 senators equals an average for all 38 of 3.26 years each officeholder

and 

There were 19 office holding senators between 1913 and 2010 which is 97 years.
97 years divided by 19 senators equals an average for all 19 of 5.10 years each officeholder

and 

An average of 5.1 years each divided by 3.26 years each each equals an increase of 56.4%from pre-17th amendment to post-17th amendment.  In both periods a senator began office before 1913 and I counted them as pre-17th amendment.

My purpose was to show that among some typical states across a middle tier of states that terms of office for office holders would become longer.  You can make your own judgements whether or not that is a positive outcome; I tend to think not.

And if we could do the same for relative wealth as compared to their average consituencies, I for one, have no doubt whatsoever (except for those states which have leaned towards electing a majority of Republicans) of that outcome either.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

While it does appear, having complied one Tier of Senators from one state (which may not reflect the whole) - in this instance, taking the 1st Tier from Pennsylvania, the most recent senators have been elected longer.  However, with the many resignations, and some deaths, it's hard to see if it is a true measure that is meaningful of anything.  It's quite likely they have, in whole,  served longer post 17th.

William Maclay (ANTI-ADMIN) -He received a *two-year term instead of the usual six-year term for  senators after he lost a lottery with the other Pennsylvania senator, Robert Morris.*

             James Ross (PRO-ADMIN,F) *9 years.*
Samuel Maclay (R) *6 years
*Michael Leib (R) *5 years*,  *resigned, having been  appointed postmaster of Philadelphia;
*Jonathan Roberts (R) *6 years
*William Findlay (R,JR,J)  *6 years (elected   to fill the  vacancy  1821, caused by the failure of the legislature to elect.)
*Isaac D. Barnard (J)  *Resigned after 3 years due to ill health.
*George M. Dallas (J)  *Completed the term left open by Barnard.*
Samuel McKean (J,D) *6 years
*Daniel Sturgeon (D) *11 years*
Richard Brodhead (D) *6 years
*Simon Cameron (R)* 3 years.  Resigned from the Senate to become Lincoln's Secreetary of War.  He again served in the Senate, eventually being succeeded by his son, J. Donald Cameron, and only resigned from Senate upon  confirmation that his son would succeed him, who then was senator for 20 years.*

             David Wilmot (R) *2 years - elected as a Republican to the United  States Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation  of Simon  Cameron
*Charles R. Buckalew (D) *6 years*
             John Scott (R) *6 years*
                 William A. Wallace (D) *6 years*
             John I. Mitchell (R) *6 years*
             Matthew S. Quay (R) *16 years*
             Philander C. Knox (R) *5 years - appointed by Governor to fill the unexpired term of Quay, re-elected to the Senate for the full term (to 1909).*
             George T. Oliver (R) *9 years*
             Philander C. Knox (R) *3 years* - *Died in office.*
             William E. Crow (R) *3 years* - *Appointed after Knox's death.* *Died in office*
             David A. Reed (R) *13 years -**Appointed after Crow's death*
             Joseph F. Guffey (D) *12 years*
             Edward Martin (R) *12 years*
             Hugh D. Scott, Jr. (R) *18 years*
              H. John Heinz III (R) *14 years - died in office*
             Harris Wofford (D) *4 years, elected, filling Heinz' term*
             Rick Santorum (R) *12 years

----
If we look at Massachusetts, for example, we see Senators such as 
Daniel Webster, who served 14 years, 
Charles Sumner, who served 23 Years,
Henry Wilson who served 18 years, 
and George Hoar who served 25 years - all pre-17th Amendment.**

(& Why on earth I took the time to look up all this trivial information, I'll never know. 
*


----------



## Foxfyre (May 19, 2010)

Dude said:


> Father Time said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



I've been watching your and Dan's points on this and they are beginning to make sense.  Keep going.  You might be obtaining a convert here.


----------



## American Horse (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> While it does appear, having complied one Tier of Senators from one state (which may not reflect the whole) - in this instance, taking the 1st Tier from Pennsylvania, the most recent senators have been elected longer.  However, with the many resignations, and some deaths, it's hard to see if it is a true measure that is meaningful of anything.  It's quite likely they have, in whole,  served longer post 17th.
> 
> William Maclay (ANTI-ADMIN) -He received a *two-year term instead of the usual six-year term for  senators after he lost a lottery with the other Pennsylvania senator, Robert Morris.*
> 
> ...



Because you are obsessive/compulsive?

I chose those 4 states because they are middle country, and representative both then and now.  I could continue across the country through Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, California and very likely, If I don't cull or massage the data in some way, we'd come up with about the same results.  It was the best I could do to make a random selection that would show the imbedded trend.  Even if you took into account every variation or possible reasons for those variations, the imbedded trend will still be there.


----------



## Sarah G (May 19, 2010)

Queen said:


> Sorry, but the Tea Partiers really are crazy. They want to take away our right to vote for our Senators!
> 
> Why Repeal 17th Amendment?
> 
> ...



They are crazy...   (Even for republicans)


----------



## ihopehefails (May 19, 2010)

I had to stop laughing at your post before I could answer.   

Anyways, the senate is designed to represent state governments and provide a check against the federal government itself since state and federal governments would naturally be opposed to each other.   

The senate has specific duties that are designed around the state's interest such as approving federal judges.  This places a natural bias in the state's favor in all suits between the state and federal government.   

They also approve all treaties so I think a nation completely composed of 50 independent units should have a direct say in treaties that will affect them.   

They also provide a check against the house of representatives (and vice-versa) since a body directly elected by the people will naturally be opposed to a body elected by the states where those people reside in.   

Finally, the argument that the will of the people will be absent is stupid because all bill must be approved by both house and senate so the people will always have a check against the senate.


----------



## ihopehefails (May 19, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but the Tea Partiers really are crazy. They want to take away our right to vote for our Senators!
> ...



The only people that are crazy is the ones that believe that the collective will of the people is somehow the same as the individual will of every person.


----------



## ihopehefails (May 19, 2010)

Queen said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Father Time said:
> ...



No it is not.  Giving other people the right to vote on what you should be able to do with your freedom is crazy.   Don't get me wrong.  I like plenty of my fellow citizens but I can't imagine giving them the power to vote away what I can do with my life.   Most rights in this country were violated because of democracy and it was the undemocratic constitution that nullified their vote.   I personally thank God we don't have some kind of unlimited democracy where we can do that.


----------



## ihopehefails (May 19, 2010)

Queen said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah. What sane person, who understands checks and balances, doesn't want to return Senate control back to the States and restore their power over the Federal Government?
> ...



For starters, bribery and corruption are crimes that happen in any government even when that government directly elects its representatives.   Do you think that would go away or is it more likely that someone lies to get into power and then makes the same back room deal as before.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


How is allowing people to vote for their Senator "giving them the power to vote away what I can do with my life."

Such loopiness.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> Queen said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


You're not helping to make your case.


----------



## ihopehefails (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...



I was referring to those who believe in democracy as some kind of protection against the loss of liberty.  Some people seem to think that democracy fixes everything but it doesn't and never has.   The best example is all the laws that were struck down that violated someone's rights in this country.   Those were not designed by some king but by the legislatures we have in place which are all democratic bodies.  

Now if democracy actually could protect people's freedom then how did all the unconstitutional, liberty violating laws that were struck down get passed by a democratic body?  It clearly does not work for protecting our freedom which is why directly picking senators doesn't change anything.


----------



## ihopehefails (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > Queen said:
> ...



It doesn't change whether people directly elect senators or have them indirectly chosen by local state legislatures.   Has corruption and back room dealings vanishes since we added the 17th amendment?


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...


I don't know about you, but I personally like the idea that *I* can help vote the bastard out.


----------



## Oddball (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> ihopehefails said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


*You* can vote for the bastard who recalls the bastard, at the state level.

That's another great thing about appointed Senators; even though their terms are six years, they could be recalled and replaced at will by the state legislatures.


----------



## paperview (May 19, 2010)

Dude said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...


That's false.

There is nothing that changes the way Senators are removed - unless you write that into the repeal language.

Which will never happen.


----------



## Oscar Wao (May 19, 2010)

I've been an advocate of repealing The 17th for the past 5 years...glad to see the baggers are finally jumping on ship with it.


----------



## Oddball (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


That's not false at all.

Until the 17th Amendment, Senators served at the pleasure of the state houses....If they became creatures of the District of Criminals, the state legislatures could recall and replace them.


----------



## LuckyDan (May 19, 2010)

paperview said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


 
Repeal would reinstate 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._

Each state legislature could determine the manner in which their US Senators are chosen and removed. Think of it as empowerment. Or even choice.


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 19, 2010)

Nope...........I don't want a state legislature to be lobbied by corporations so that they can put Senators in place to do their bidding.

BP anyone?


----------



## LuckyDan (May 19, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> Nope...........I don't want a state legislature to be lobbied by corporations so that they can put Senators in place to do their bidding.
> 
> BP anyone?


 
I'd rather they were lobbying states than individual Senators. They'd have 50 lobbies to crowd instead of just one.


----------



## ABikerSailor (May 19, 2010)

If they lobby the state, then they can get even more entrenched in screwing things up than ever before.

I mean.......it's readily apparent which senators are in the pockets of big oil.  Just look at the Gulf fiasco.


----------



## LuckyDan (May 19, 2010)

ABikerSailor said:


> If they lobby the state, then they can get even more entrenched in screwing things up than ever before.
> 
> I mean.......it's readily apparent which senators are in the pockets of big oil. Just look at the Gulf fiasco.


 
Actually I'm still waiting for a good look at the Gulf fiasco, but that's another thread.

Corruption will be with us, no matter what. I like the idea of re-empowering the individual states more than anything else.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 20, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



This is correct.  That system worked pretty well until the hostilities between the states began to escalate in the mid 19th Century resulting in some states not sending senators plus there was the age old problem of graft and bribery buying and selling those senate seats.

There's a pretty good history here:
U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Institutional Development > Direct Election of Senators

I wish the states would be the ones to set the salaries and pension plans, if any, for their own congressional representatives.  There's probably a problem with that I've overlooked, but I have a problem with our elected leaders being able to vote themselves lifetime wealth making millionaires at our expense of almost all who serve in Congress for any time.


----------



## American Horse (May 20, 2010)

ihopehefails said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > ihopehefails said:
> ...



I hope you will provide a few examples of these laws for clarification?


----------



## American Horse (May 20, 2010)

Oscar Wao said:


> I've been an advocate of repealing The 17th for the past 5 years...glad to see the baggers are finally jumping on ship with it.



This is just one TEA PARTY  proposal, and not the primary one.  It's being given attention as if it were because it denotes "states rights." That is a well known bug-a-boo of the left to discredit those who support it as being knaves. 

Oscar, the *Tea Party* Core values are Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets.  The "secondary agenda items" are continually in flux, rising to the top and then being replaced. That may be because this is not an organization in the ordinary sense, but reflects the dynamics of the views of the members as they propose new items of common personal concern.  They get reflected on in the context of current events and flux of new members which means both are constantly changing.  The Tea Party movement is more like a "committee" of a huge neighborhood-association than any kind of business organization like labor unions  we are so used to.

As to the disparaging useage of the term Tea Baggers and "baggers,"  I'd rather be a bagg-er than a bagg-ee, but neither appeal to me.


----------



## Foxfyre (May 20, 2010)

American Horse said:


> Oscar Wao said:
> 
> 
> > I've been an advocate of repealing The 17th for the past 5 years...glad to see the baggers are finally jumping on ship with it.
> ...



You're right.  To re-emphasize, the core emphasis of the Tea Party movement is as you said:   *Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. *

Side issues surface from time to time as suggestions of ways those core principles can be addressed, and then some.....especially those who are terrified of and want to destroy the Tea Party movement.......do their damndest to get us bogged down in the side issues that are waaaaaaaaay down on the list of priorities.

If the Tea Party spirit is infused into our state and federal leadership, all those side issues can then be addressed, researched, debated, and decided within a framework that gives us the best shot at arriving at the best possible decisions.


----------



## American Horse (May 20, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Oscar Wao said:
> ...



Exactly right Fox, and that is what is being lost on the left as they attempt to almost criminalize (as some of them do with those who disagree with their master plan).  I think the comparison to the *huge neighborhood-association* is a good one, as I experience it myself in the past. They are precursors to the TEA PARTY: Older folks, retired and able to spend time, along with housewives, people concerned about the future of their children come out en-masse to oppose &#8220;new development in their back yards," because they are made to feel insecure by it.  

They have amazing power to hang in as long as there is an "issue", and they give up time to prepare and to attend public meetings and stand before the plan commission with a slew of objections and proposals to address their issues.  (I experienced this with my last development, they proved to be a huge force, tenacious, and extracted pretty much what they wanted, except for not completely shutting me down - which not all even wanted to do)


----------



## Foxfyre (May 20, 2010)

American Horse said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



But in the end,  short of being shut down which few developers are , isn't it better to yield to the greater will of the people and come to compromises that all are comfortable living with?  It makes for a much more pleasant and aesthetically pleasing society.  I've been on both sides of such issues - petitioning for development and petitioning to stop or relocate it when I thought it was a bad thing for a community.  I don't know if we got it right in every case, but usually it all works out.

I don't see how this country can go wrong, however, by reining in government abuse of power, restoring fiscal integrity,  letting the free market system work and thereby reinforce our unalienable rights. 

What we're doing now sure as hell isn't working.


----------



## Nosmo King (May 20, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> demonize demonize demonize,, demonize demonize demonize,, how did you DUmmies get so mean anyway??


Lessons learned at the feet of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and Spiro Agnew and Phyllis Schlafly and Barry Goldwater...


----------



## American Horse (May 20, 2010)

Foxfyre said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly right Fox, and that is what is being lost on the left as they attempt to almost criminalize (as some of them do with those who disagree with their master plan).  I think the comparison to the *huge neighborhood-association* is a good one, as I experience it myself in the past.  Older folks, retired and able to spend time, along with housewives, people concerned about the future of their children come out en-masse to oppose &#8220;new development in their back yards," because they are made to feel insecure by it.
> ...



I think the neighborhood parallel is pertinent.  It's the same people demographically. They are for the most part reasonable, but tenacious, and if the "project" is stopped in its entirety it probably is good for everyone concerned.  Too many developers (like politicians) are not really aware of the consequences (possibly even honest) of their proposed changes, and looking back, even after being stopped, they will consider it the best thing if they are honest.


----------

