Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[The2ndAmendment]

Why the 17th Amendment is Bad and Should be Repealed | Truth In Exile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.

This is the most important excerpt of your post.

When the Third Private and Foreign Owned Bank of the United States was in design(The Federal Reserve), the Banking Dynasties and Cabals learned from their past mistakes, when the First and Second Banks of the United States were destroyed --- by the State Legislatures.

They knew they had to abolish the Senate entirely, which was accomplished by the 17th Amendment, in order for the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve to survive more than one re-charter.

Once the State check on the General Government was removed, all that was left was the People. If only they could cap the House of Reps, the would be able to declare themselves Supreme Oligarchs.

Oh shit, they did cap the House not too long after.

Now there's neither State nor Popular check on the Federal Government.

...

Progress!

 

[rightwinger]

The way it should work is there is one house of congress that is based on popular vote. The house of representatives. The other house is supposed to be based on regional interest. That's why two senators from each state irregardless of head count. To turn the senate on it's head and make it based on head count... is nutz for some states. Some states have rural and cities. To make the representation entirely based on head count screws the rural districts. The smaller states/districts get screwed. But I guess that's what you want. Screw rural disctricts. They should be forced to bend to the will of the majority that about right? Why not just kill the 49% that disagrees with you and get it over with.

Those people in smaller states and rural areas are already overepresented in Congress. 600,000 people in Wyoming have the same Senate clout as 40 million in California

And you want to make it worse

make what worse

The vote of a citizen living in a rural area already has more power than the vote of a person in an urban area

It applies in Congressional, Senate and Presidential races

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Only an idiot would think that the Preamble is not part of the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

LOLing@ the major biatchslapping old Carby has taken in this thread.. Pass the popcorn plz. ;-)

Unable to differentiate a title from content

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So explain to us why preventing the People of Massachusetts from electing Scott Brown instead of a Democrat would have been a better way to ensure everyone in that state had a voice.

I don't remember a single conservative calling that election an injustice.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

yup that is why you would think the leftists would also be for it

they always portray themselves as watching out for the little guy

instead of mob rule

 

[jon_berzerk]

Those people in smaller states and rural areas are already overepresented in Congress. 600,000 people in Wyoming have the same Senate clout as 40 million in California

And you want to make it worse

make what worse

The vote of a citizen living in a rural area already has more power than the vote of a person in an urban area

It applies in Congressional, Senate and Presidential races

no they dont

they vote one time just like everyone else

 

[NYcarbineer]

The first words of the Constitution are Constitution of the United States, what you quoted are the first three words of the preamble.

LOLing@ the major biatchslapping old Carby has taken in this thread.. Pass the popcorn plz. ;-)

Unable to differentiate a title from content

She thinks the first 3 words of the Bible are 'Holy Bible Genesis'

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

LOLing@ the major biatchslapping old Carby has taken in this thread.. Pass the popcorn plz. ;-)

He likes that rough stuff.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Those people in smaller states and rural areas are already overepresented in Congress. 600,000 people in Wyoming have the same Senate clout as 40 million in California

And you want to make it worse

make what worse

The vote of a citizen living in a rural area already has more power than the vote of a person in an urban area

It applies in Congressional, Senate and Presidential races

Bullshit. Your libtard mathematics do not apply to the civics of republican forms of government, nitwit. The whole point to a Republic is to divide the various sources of power and its factions into different forms so that no monolithic government can be established. IT I S NOT AND NEVER WAS INTENDED TO BE A DEMOCRACY MUCH LESS SOME KIND OF MATHEMATICALLY PURE AND PERFECTLY EVENHANDED DEMOCRACY, you fucking retard.

 

[JimBowie1958]

LOLing@ the major biatchslapping old Carby has taken in this thread.. Pass the popcorn plz. ;-)

Unable to differentiate a title from content

She thinks the first 3 words of the Bible are 'Holy Bible Genesis'

You libtards are really good at rebuttals to straw man arguments.

That and giving yourself a cranial colonoscopy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's always funny to see conservatives running with crazy ideas that not one of them can make an articulate defense of,

and yet they cling to it because they think it's something that conservatives are supposed to believe in.

 

[kwc57]

Screw them?

Are you claiming they deserve more than one vote?

The way it should work is there is one house of congress that is based on popular vote. The house of representatives. The other house is supposed to be based on regional interest. That's why two senators from each state irregardless of head count. To turn the senate on it's head and make it based on head count... is nutz for some states. Some states have rural and cities. To make the representation entirely based on head count screws the rural districts. The smaller states/districts get screwed. But I guess that's what you want. Screw rural disctricts. They should be forced to bend to the will of the majority that about right? Why not just kill the 49% that disagrees with you and get it over with.

Those people in smaller states and rural areas are already overepresented in Congress. 600,000 people in Wyoming have the same Senate clout as 40 million in California

And you want to make it worse

You really don't understand the role of the senate and the house do you? Unlike Obama, we don't just get to make it up as we go. The constitution, read it, learn it, live it.

 

[eflatminor]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

But when they implemented the 17th is wasn't a how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-progressives scam?

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unable to differentiate a title from content

She thinks the first 3 words of the Bible are 'Holy Bible Genesis'

You libtards are really good at rebuttals to straw man arguments.

That and giving yourself a cranial colonoscopy.

Do you know what the first 3 words of the Constitution are?

 

[rightwinger]

The way it should work is there is one house of congress that is based on popular vote. The house of representatives. The other house is supposed to be based on regional interest. That's why two senators from each state irregardless of head count. To turn the senate on it's head and make it based on head count... is nutz for some states. Some states have rural and cities. To make the representation entirely based on head count screws the rural districts. The smaller states/districts get screwed. But I guess that's what you want. Screw rural disctricts. They should be forced to bend to the will of the majority that about right? Why not just kill the 49% that disagrees with you and get it over with.

Those people in smaller states and rural areas are already overepresented in Congress. 600,000 people in Wyoming have the same Senate clout as 40 million in California

And you want to make it worse

You really don't understand the role of the senate and the house do you? Unlike Obama, we don't just get to make it up as we go. The constitution, read it, learn it, live it.

Of course I do

That is why I do not want to transfer more power in the voting booth to low populated areas

 

[rightwinger]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

But when they implemented the 17th is wasn't a how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-progressives scam?

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

I agree...

Transfering more power from government to "We the People" is definitely progressive

 

[eflatminor]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

But when they implemented the 17th is wasn't a how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-progressives scam?

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

I agree...

Transfering more power from government to "We the People" is definitely progressive

Man are you one confused puppy. The 17th took power from the local people. Gee thee a history book not written by a commie.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

But when they implemented the 17th is wasn't a how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-progressives scam?

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Are you retarded? This 2013.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can anyone here, without rambling on for a thousand words, explain to me why my losing my right to vote directly for the candidate of my choice for senator from my state is going to make my life better,

from the standpoint of my ability to participate in the democratic process that creates the government under which I'm obliged to live?

(I suggest clear concise numbered points)