Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[g5000]

By claiming that the original system was more of a check on what you call 'federal expansionism'

aren't you admitting that the original system has a conservative bias? At least by the measure of 'states' rights' as conservatives like to tout?

If you are using the word "conservative" in the modern political sense, then we are in a gray area. The modern day conservative political beast is far from conservative. The modern day conservative craves federal power as much as the modern day liberal.

But if you mean it in the traditional sense, that is precisely what the Founders intended. To conserve, or limit, the power of the federal government and to preserve the power of the states.

.

Do you know that Jefferson mocked the idea of future generations binding themselves religiously to ideas like 'what the founders intended'?

I defy you to show me Jefferson was not a virulent opponent of federal expansionism. I can show you where he was concerned future generations would violate that principle.

 

[RKMBrown]

What part of why should I lose my right to vote for Senators don't YOU understand?

Spoken from the view of a tyrant who believes himself to be in the majority.

 

[g5000]

NYcarbineer, please bear with me and read this whole post.

I spoke earlier about the astonishing number of federal preemptions in our laws. I would like to draw your attention to just one.

Section 117 of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 approved by the Republican Congress, signed by President Clinton:

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops

I would like you to take some time, when you have a chance, to learn what a bucket shop is.

And then I would like you to ask yourself, "Why would a BANK need to be exempted from state laws regulating CASINOS? Why would a BANK need to be exempted from state laws outlawing BUCKET SHOPS?"

The state legislatures passed those laws for good reasons.


This federal preemption is what allows traders to gamble on whether or not you will make your mortgage payments, even if they are not the ones who loaned you the money. It is pure gambling.

The CFMA played a large role in the financial crash a few years later. And it was provisions like this federal preemption of state laws which put systemic risks on steroids. And it was the preemption which allows the banks to pass those supercharged risks on to investors like the guy who runs your 401k account without making the investors aware of those risks.

Bucket shops.

Those state laws were designed to protect YOU, and they were preempted.

So you go right ahead and clutch this idea to your chest that you are somehow better off with that check on federal preemptions removed.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

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

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

I agree with your assessment. The GOP as it exists today cannot win on ideas alone, they must figure out ways to thwart the election process.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

I used to live in Georgia, and the state legislature, in a tie election, elected Lester Maddox over Beau Calloway as state governor

.Lester Maddox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'nough said.

Yeah, we certainly don't want anyone but approved candidates elected.

 

[FA_Q2]

Damn, I’m late to this one. Well, topic is from yesterday so maybe not late per se.

I fully support the concept of repealing the 17th for the reasons listed in the OP (the ones referring to the state) I think that there is ample evidence that the states have become arms of the federal government rather than a check on the federal governments power as they were originally supposed to be and I think that there is a clear line to the 17th for this tragedy. The problem is so stark that most of the liberals here don’t even understand the concept of state sovereignty or that they should be separate. The thread alone says it all. Almost every single person against this concept (really only QW is the exception here) has completely missed the concept of state sovereignty and believe that they are somehow non-existent. The scary part is how clear that the founders were in their intent. So far, one single poster has voiced that the founders got it wrong (at least a valid stance on the subject) while the remaining have no clue whatsoever what the intent of the senate was. In reality, we no longer even represent a federal system of government, we have moved past that into a single state.

It seems to me those who oppose repealing the 17th amendment, having grown up in a world where states rights have been completely emasculated, are unable to fathom the benefits of restoring a check on federal expansionism.

You seem to be 100 percent correct but of course those people also believe in an unlimited central government with almost no restrictions in power. I guess I can understand why they fail to understand basic checks and balances.

I must admit though, I am surprised to see you support such a measure because you started this with:

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.

How do you square the idea that this is nothing more than an end run around the people to gain power and the idea that this is something that should be done.

 

[Avatar4321]

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. ;-)

^^^^ Stupid has showed up.

There is no need to announce your presence. Especially when you aren't planning to add anything

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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

Some day, your knee is going to jerk so hard your leg will break.

Good thing Obamacare is kicking in.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Right now, Republicans hold the House of Representatives because they are able to gerrymander congressional districts to give them a majority of the seats even though they receive less votes

But how can you gerrymander the Senate if the states elect Senators through a direct vote?

I have an idea!

If we repeal the 17th amendment we can have State Legislatures appoint Senators and we CAN gerrymander State Legislatures

What makes you think only republicans gerrymander congressional districts? Are you really that much of a moron?

You might of left off the final sentence. It says more about you than you might think.

That said, the people of CA decided to take the partisanship out of redistricting:

Proposition 20: Redistricting of Congressional Districts. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Can you guess who opposed prop. 20 and added prop 27 to the ballot?

 

[Avatar4321]

Let's ask a more basic question. Should the State governments have a check on the Federal government? Because it seems there are alot of people who seem to think that no check should exist.

 

[RKMBrown]

Right now, Republicans hold the House of Representatives because they are able to gerrymander congressional districts to give them a majority of the seats even though they receive less votes

But how can you gerrymander the Senate if the states elect Senators through a direct vote?

I have an idea!

If we repeal the 17th amendment we can have State Legislatures appoint Senators and we CAN gerrymander State Legislatures

What makes you think only republicans gerrymander congressional districts? Are you really that much of a moron?

You might of left off the final sentence. It says more about you than you might think.

That said, the people of CA decided to take the partisanship out of redistricting:

Proposition 20: Redistricting of Congressional Districts. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Point taken. Apologies to all the morons out there that are not leftist koolaid drinkers

 

[FA_Q2]

Congressional lines are drawn under State Constitutions not the federal Constitution.

Hence the proposal for an AMENDMENT

sheesh

Amending the federal Constitution has no bearing on a State Constitution unless you want to amend the Tenth Amendment as well.

District lines are the responsibility of the State.

Absolutely false. The tenth is explicit: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

By amending the constitution to include congressional lines you are effectively delegating that responsibility to the federal government in the constitution. If the constitution makes something a federal responsibility then the federal government clearly retains jurisdiction and supremacy over it. The only time that the state constitutions will take precedent is if the constitution does not identify that power as a federal one.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

NYcarbineer, please bear with me and read this whole post.

I spoke earlier about the astonishing number of federal preemptions in our laws. I would like to draw your attention to just one.

Section 117 of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 approved by the Republican Congress, signed by President Clinton:

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops

I would like you to take some time, when you have a chance, to learn what a bucket shop is.

And then I would like you to ask yourself, "Why would a BANK need to be exempted from state laws regulating CASINOS? Why would a BANK need to be exempted from state laws outlawing BUCKET SHOPS?"

The state legislatures passed those laws for good reasons.


This federal preemption is what allows traders to gamble on whether or not you will make your mortgage payments, even if they are not the ones who loaned you the money. It is pure gambling.

The CFMA played a large role in the financial crash a few years later. And it was provisions like this federal preemption of state laws which put systemic risks on steroids. And it was the preemption which allows the banks to pass those supercharged risks on to investors like the guy who runs your 401k account without making the investors aware of those risks.

Bucket shops.

Those state laws were designed to protect YOU, and they were preempted.

So you go right ahead and clutch this idea to your chest that you are somehow better off with that check on federal preemptions removed.

The term bucket shop comes from the practice of throwing a trade in a bucket instead of entering the trade in the market.

It works like this:

A client calls in a trade. The broker doesn't make the trade. If the trade goes the way of the client, the broker calls the client and tell him he couldn't get the trade off. If the trade goes against the client the brokerage pockets the money the client would've lost in the market.

Now you know what a bucket shop is.

 

[g5000]

Damn, I’m late to this one. Well, topic is from yesterday so maybe not late per se.

I fully support the concept of repealing the 17th for the reasons listed in the OP (the ones referring to the state) I think that there is ample evidence that the states have become arms of the federal government rather than a check on the federal governments power as they were originally supposed to be and I think that there is a clear line to the 17th for this tragedy. The problem is so stark that most of the liberals here don’t even understand the concept of state sovereignty or that they should be separate. The thread alone says it all. Almost every single person against this concept (really only QW is the exception here) has completely missed the concept of state sovereignty and believe that they are somehow non-existent. The scary part is how clear that the founders were in their intent. So far, one single poster has voiced that the founders got it wrong (at least a valid stance on the subject) while the remaining have no clue whatsoever what the intent of the senate was. In reality, we no longer even represent a federal system of government, we have moved past that into a single state.

It seems to me those who oppose repealing the 17th amendment, having grown up in a world where states rights have been completely emasculated, are unable to fathom the benefits of restoring a check on federal expansionism.

You seem to be 100 percent correct but of course those people also believe in an unlimited central government with almost no restrictions in power. I guess I can understand why they fail to understand basic checks and balances.

I must admit though, I am surprised to see you support such a measure because you started this with:

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.

How do you square the idea that this is nothing more than an end run around the people to gain power and the idea that this is something that should be done.

My statement about the "real purpose" of the repeal movement was dually pronged.

One, it was intended to stimulate debate, which it seems to have accomplished.

Two, I believe there are those whose objectives are purely selfish. They see the short term benefit it would provide for one particular party, and since they are only concerned with power, a repeal of the 17th is merely a vehicle of convenience. These people are not be trusted in any way. Their intentions are dishonorable and counter to true conservative principles. Ironically, their support of a states rights effort has the real purpose of acheiving federal powers for themselves.

But there are those who truly do believe federal power has gone way past the safety limits and who have an honest desire to scale that back. Those voices need to be heard, and the cause articulated. I believe if you have a superior idea and can express it, you will ultimately win out in the end.

This was an opportunity for such people to come forward, put the idea on the table, and then defend it.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

This means, on the Senate district level, rural states' votes continue to be more heavily weighted than urbanized states with the result that 27 state legislatures are Republican controlled, while only 17 state legislatures are Democratic controlled. The rest are split.

Consequently, the immediate result of repealing the 17th amendment would result in 54 GOP Senators, 34 Democratic Senators, with the rest being a tossup. The Republicans would gain a majority in the Senate.

Which would be far more representative of where America actually is politically. How many Republican governors are there? How many State Houses are Republican led? How many Republicans are there in the US House compared to Democrats? The urban areas are the tail wagging the dog.

Why should urbanites be disenfranchised just because of where they live?

Yeah, it's better to disenfranchise the populations of rural areas, right?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

That we give states with small populations the same number of Senators as states with large populations is enough pandering to the rural populations. No need to make it worse. Rural people are nothing special; they deserve no special treatment.

The purpose of a Senator is different than the purpose of a Representative. The senators represent the state's interests where the representative represent the constituent's interests. That's why each state has the same number.

No

They both represent the people

Then the senate is redundant.

 

[g5000]

Which would be far more representative of where America actually is politically. How many Republican governors are there? How many State Houses are Republican led? How many Republicans are there in the US House compared to Democrats? The urban areas are the tail wagging the dog.

Why should urbanites be disenfranchised just because of where they live?

Yeah, it's better to disenfranchise the populations of rural areas, right?

I believe many of the Republican state houses would not be Republican-controlled were it not for gerrymandering. They would not have a majority of states in their control.

Yes, yes, yes, there are Democratic states which are gerrymandered. Yes. But after the 2004 election, I looked at Congressional districts for most of the states, and the Republicans seem to win, hands-down, in the gerrymandering category.

That's why I say a repeal of the 17th amendment would only be of short term benefit to the GOP. If there was no gerrymandering, I think the GOP would feel a huge draining of power.

This is how we filter out those who have an honest motive and those who don't.

 

[g5000]

The purpose of a Senator is different than the purpose of a Representative. The senators represent the state's interests where the representative represent the constituent's interests. That's why each state has the same number.

No

They both represent the people

Then the senate is redundant.

Not quite, but very nearly.

 

[FA_Q2]

bral

I would like to change it back to the states deciding their Senators. The reason, so less influence by corporate money. Also it would hopefully get rid of 30year Senators.

Are you serious? It's a lot easier to buy off a few politicians in a state legislature than a few million voters in a state.

No, its not and current politics outlines this rather well. The masses are easily swayed with ads covering where a politician placed his dog carrier rather than even bothering with real positions. Current politics is a joke. All in all, it is CLEAR that the 17th has done nothing for corruption. The crux of this issues still lies in federal power and checks and balances.

You "believe" ? I think its quite obvious that is fact! Everything the Republicans do is motivated by winning at any cost to democracy. Heck - a lot of them don't even think we should have a democracy. Republicans believe - and are correct - that if they limit the power of the American voter, they will be better positioned.

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.

Explain one difference of a representative democracy and a republic.

The term representative democracy is a farce without a clear distinction from a republic.

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)

It has nothing to do with you being ‘better’ off. That is a rather inane question as it is completely subjective. You seem to not understand that the entire point is that the states itself has no representation to ensure the SOVEREIGN states maintain power to keep the feds in check. Without that check, the states are now nothing more than arms of the federal government. Do you REALLY think that this nation was founded under that guise? Case in point, we are SUPPOSED to be a federalist government. Right now, we are NOT. We have abandoned federalism for a single state. Why even bother with a senate if they are going to be elected in the same manner as the house.

The simple fact is that you still have representation. You vote for the president (the single most powerful position in government) and the house or representatives as well as the state representatives. You have that power. There is the check against government from the people. What extra purpose does the senate serve then? It is the SAME representation.

Further, let me ask you a similar question. Why are we better off with the president and the senate selecting the SCOTUS judges? How are YOU better off with them being appointees and not elected by the people. Do you really think that electing the judges would be a superior method of determining the ultimate court in the US?

 

[g5000]

You seem to not understand that the entire point is that the states itself has no representation...

Precisely. It's like we're speaking in Greek.