Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So what? Everyone get's 1/50th of the input to the federal government at the state level. How is that a bad thing?It's equal because each of the 50 states gets the same input regardless of their population since they all have to live under the same rules they institute. North Dakota should have the same power to tell the feds to f*ck off as California does. Only an idiot would want to live under the rule of Cal and the East coast just because they have more people.
Yes, each of the 50 States gets equal input, but each person in each state gets unequal input.
Which is a problem, because the People of California are already represented in the House, by proportion of their population respective to the nation as a whole.
Since 1 Senator from North Dakota represents only 1/100 the number of persons in California, this mean the each Citizen of North Dakota's vote counts 100x more than a vote of a Citizen of California.
That is unequal.
It's equal because each of the 50 states gets the same input regardless of their population since they all have to live under the same rules they institute. North Dakota should have the same power to tell the feds to f*ck off as California does. Only an idiot would want to live under the rule of Cal and the East coast just because they have more people.
Yes, each of the 50 States gets equal input, but each person in each state gets unequal input.
But apparently you haven't read this thread, because you would have known that I fully support the REPEAL of the 17th Amendment and returning to the State legislatures appointing the Senators. Try reading from the start, or at the very least, read each of my posts on this thread before you come down on me with such vitriol. I'm on your side.
I was pointing out a GLARING flaw in right-wingers declaration.
So what? Everyone get's 1/50th of the input to the federal government at the state level. How is that a bad thing?Yes, each of the 50 States gets equal input, but each person in each state gets unequal input.
Apparently you haven't read this thread, because you would have known that I fully support the REPEAL of the 17th Amendment and returning to the State legislatures appointing the Senators. Try reading from the start, or at the very least, read each of my posts on this thread before you come down on me with such vitriol. I'm on your side.
OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES
Also you partially quoted me, did you do that on purpose?
So what? Everyone get's 1/50th of the input to the federal government at the state level. How is that a bad thing?
Apparently you haven't read this thread, because you would have known that I fully support the REPEAL of the 17th Amendment and returning to the State legislatures appointing the Senators. Try reading from the start, or at the very least, read each of my posts on this thread before you come down on me with such vitriol. I'm on your side.
OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES
Also you partially quoted me, did you do that on purpose?
I apparently quoted you before the edit for f*ck sakes. I didn't partially quote anything.
So what? Everyone get's 1/50th of the input to the federal government at the state level. How is that a bad thing?It's equal because each of the 50 states gets the same input regardless of their population since they all have to live under the same rules they institute. North Dakota should have the same power to tell the feds to f*ck off as California does. Only an idiot would want to live under the rule of Cal and the East coast just because they have more people.
Yes, each of the 50 States gets equal input, but each person in each state gets unequal input.
A question for those who support the current system.. pro-17th Amendment.
If both houses of the Congress are direct elections by the people, who is at the Federal Level to represent the voice of the States.
I would like to remind people that we are the "United States of America"... not the "United People of America". There are 50 Sovreign States, each with different needs, concerns, and responsiblities.
We don't have a democracy, it's a f*cking republic! There are some very good reasons for this if you would take the time to look into the difference and why it was done this way.
We have a representative democracy. Look it up.
Article IV, Section 4 Contradicts you:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
A question for those who support the current system.. pro-17th Amendment.
If both houses of the Congress are direct elections by the people, who is at the Federal Level to represent the voice of the States.
I would like to remind people that we are the "United States of America"... not the "United People of America". There are 50 Sovreign States, each with different needs, concerns, and responsiblities.
The first 3 words of the Constitution are we the people, not we the states.
It's like talking to a tape recorder... The same answer regardless what the question is. It's as if some people have never been taught to think for themselves.
Millions of Americans think for themselves and directly elect their representatives
Conservatives want to take that away from them because those Americans no longer support conservative candidates
Gonna guess you are not smart enough to understand the difference between majority vote for a portion of congress and a representative vote for folks who are not necessarily in the large cities. Or are you saying screw anyone that is not in a major city?
A Senator from California does not represent the State of California.......he represents the people of California
So what? Everyone get's 1/50th of the input to the federal government at the state level. How is that a bad thing?Yes, each of the 50 States gets equal input, but each person in each state gets unequal input.
So what if California's people decided that California should be 5 states instead of 1?
We have a representative democracy. Look it up.
Article IV, Section 4 Contradicts you:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
No, a democratic republic is a representative democracy.
We get it, you want a government that is less democratic. That is a common affliction that conservatives exhibit because they know that conservatism can never be more than a minority in this country,
so conservatives are always looking for ways that will un-democratize our system in some way that will give conservatives more power than their numbers warrant.
A question for those who support the current system.. pro-17th Amendment.
If both houses of the Congress are direct elections by the people, who is at the Federal Level to represent the voice of the States.
I would like to remind people that we are the "United States of America"... not the "United People of America". There are 50 Sovreign States, each with different needs, concerns, and responsiblities.
The first 3 words of the Constitution are we the people, not we the states.
So what? Everyone get's 1/50th of the input to the federal government at the state level. How is that a bad thing?Yes, each of the 50 States gets equal input, but each person in each state gets unequal input.
So what if California's people decided that California should be 5 states instead of 1?
So what? Everyone get's 1/50th of the input to the federal government at the state level. How is that a bad thing?
So what if California's people decided that California should be 5 states instead of 1?
Congress has to admit every state.
I haven't read all the posts yet, will have to do that later.
However, I believe the reason for it's repeal is in essence the same reason that each state only gets 2 Senators irregardless of population.
aka New York has a very large population versus West Virginia having a much lower population still get 2 Senators. The founders did this so each state would have an equal voice in the matters of the country, and so the larger states could not impose their will on smaller states whose important issues are possibly completely different than the population centers. Thus giving the smaller population areas a voice.
This is basically the same principle within a state. Rural Areas versus Urban Areas. The Urban areas have the large populations and can drown out the voice of rural areas. Thus the Rural Areas may feel that their voices are not heard as they are so heavily outweighed by the Urban areas whose ideals or opinions aren't the same as the country farming areas.
That is my basic opinion of the Federalist opinion of the Founders. They were Extremely concerned on INSURING THAT EVERYONE HAS A VOICE in the Political Process. The Constitution ensured this via the 2 Senators from each state rule. While still giving the population centers more of a voice in the House.
Plain and simple. A way to maintain Checks and Balances on the Gov't. And ensure that everyone has a voice.
Which is why I'd support the repeal of the 17th Amendment. Because it ensures everyone has a voice in the matter. As far as the Population Centers from these states, they still get the numbers in the House of Reps.
A question for those who support the current system.. pro-17th Amendment.
If both houses of the Congress are direct elections by the people, who is at the Federal Level to represent the voice of the States.
I would like to remind people that we are the "United States of America"... not the "United People of America". There are 50 Sovreign States, each with different needs, concerns, and responsiblities.
The first 3 words of the Constitution are we the people, not we the states.
The first words of the Constitution are Constitution of the United States, what you quoted are the first three words of the preamble.
Why the 17th Amendment is Bad and Should be Repealed | Truth In Exile
Before 1914, senators were not directly elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The 17th amendment changed that, and not for the better. Why is it bad to have them be elected by the people? Isn’t that more democratic, and therefore, better? Not really.
The original intent of the founders was to have a Federalist system which consisted of individual states and a small central government with very limited powers. The idea was that the states would send the senators to Washington to represent them. If a senator started voting against the best interests of the state which he represented, he could be immediately recalled.
What happens today when a senator violates his oath of office and votes for unconstitutional bills? Nothing. Senators are elected for six years and even when those six years are up, it is almost impossible to take them out. In 2010 84% of incumbent senators were re-elected. In some years that number has been as high as 96%.
An example of senators being forced to resign by their state legislatures is noted by Thomas Dilorenzo:
State legislatures were instrumental in Andrew Jackson’s famous battle with the Bank of the United States (BUS), which ended with the Bank being de-funded and replaced by the Independent Treasury System and the era of “free banking” (1842—1862).
Senator Pelog Sprague of Maine was forced to resign in 1835 after ignoring his legislature’s instructions to vote against the Bank.
Without the 17th amendment the senators would be kept in check. They would be watched closely by the state legislatures. So what happens when the state legislatures fail to make sure no unconstitutional bills are voted for by the senators? That’s where the people come in. It is much easier for the people of a state to contact and put pressure on the state representatives which reside in their district than it is for them to try to get a U.S. Senator to listen to them all the way from Washington. You can’t just walk into a senator’s office without having to take a long trip to get there.
The idea is that the people keep a close eye on their state legislatures, and the state legislatures would then keep a close eye on the senators that represent them.
It is clear that the founders’ intent was to always have the states be more powerful than the federal government, which is why the states ratified the Constitution, giving the federal government the authority only to do what they felt was necessary. The 17th amendment does a lot to reverse this. In the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, then Vice President, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the following:
…[T]he several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government…[T]he government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers…
The federal government cannot be trusted to keep itself in check. Having the three separate branches of government is not enough because they all belong to the federal government. Once the senators go to Washington, they are part of the system. It actually becomes beneficial to them to have the federal government become more and more powerful, since that makes them more powerful.
You may be asking yourself, why did they pass the 17th amendment and change the way senators are elected? It must not have been working the way it was before, right? Well, the problem that they tried to solve with the 17th amendment was that of frequent deadlocks that occurred in the state legislatures when trying to select a senator. When this occurred, that particular state would go without representation in the Senate. But why did these deadlocks occur? Thomas Dilorenzo notes:
…in 1866 a new federal law was passed that mandated for the first time how the states were to appoint senators. First, a voice vote would be taken in each house. If there was no overwhelming choice, then a concurrent vote would be taken. This process revealed information about voting preferences to minority cliques within the legislatures, who then knew who they had to support or oppose. The end result was frequent gridlocks (71 from 1885 to 1912 alone). The deadlocks were inevitably ended by bribery.
So, rather than try to change the way the legislatures selected senators, they threw the federalist system out with the bath water, and took away the power from the states completely. This is huge! It’s a big reason why the federal government has been able to get away with so much. The states are not in control. The federal government continues to grow and ignore the Constitution with no one to answer to. If we are to reverse this, one of the first things that must be done is the repeal of the 17th amendment.
Unfortunately, congressmen are often more worried about perception than they are about fixing our problems. Even if they agreed that the 17th should be repealed, most would not have the courage to get it done for fear of being called “anti-democracy.”
