Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[rightwinger]

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.

There is a difference between the state government and the state

The state provides Congressmen and Senators to represent their priorities at the Federal Level. If they fail to do so, they are voted out of office by the people

The State government is also comprised of assemblymen and Senators who are voted on by the people

Should County governments have checks and balances on State Governments?
Should City governments have checks and balances over County governments?

I practice, all are elected by the people....as it should be

 

[Darkwind]

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 think you are missing a couple of points. First, Article V of the Constitution provides that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Since Article V deals with the amendment process, this is the one remaining absolute prohibition in the Constitution, which cannot be removed even by amendment. This rules out a number of solutions, such as increasing the number of Senators for more populated states.

The problem is not the 17th Amendment, which deals with the manner of electing Senators, but with the equal allocation of Senators (two) to each state. It really doesn't matter for your argument whether these Senators are elected directly, by state legislators, or for that matter chosen by lot!

If there is a remedy, it would be for more populous states to decide to divide into multiple states increasing the number of states and thus Senators. I'm not sure this would accomplish much. Many of the larger states have a urban/rural divisions that would not change the results much. For example, if Chicago became a state separate from Illinois, it would select two Democratic Senators and downstate would select two Republican Senators. Currently there are one of each, so the number of Senators would increase while the balance would remain equal.

But what about a state like Texas? An argument can be made that four or five large cities in Texas could become separate states and that a majority of these would probably be Democratic (Austin for example). Since there are no Texas Democratic Senators today, any pickup would be a gain.

It's a fun game to play, but I just don't see how this kind of restructuring could have a major lasting impact on the balance of the Senate.

Why would we want to divide the country up into a bunch of city/states?

I am not opposed to adding states, but lets make sure they are more than just cities. Of course, none of this matters because the 17th Amendment gutted the very structure of the Constitution, and as a consequence, the country has been going downhill pretty much since then.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Another way for Republicans to circumvent the popular vote

They can no longer win the Senate based on popular election. But they have managed to lock up a majority of State Legislatures

Any wonder why they want to repeal the 17th amendment?

Of course the GOP wants to eliminate more of the public voting.

They truly believe in "running it like a business" when it comes to government. Business is a dictatorship model. A single CEO calling all the shots. Power concentrated in the hands of a few. You think they believe the slugs in the mailroom or warehouse DESERVE any say-so in company operations? HELL NO. Those people need to know their place on the totem pole and shut-up.

And that's how the GOP wants government run. SMALLER government (meaning, less government workers) but, the same amount of power....just, you know, concentrated in the hands of a few- themselves of course.

They know they've lost the population. The younger generations are far more left of center than ever before, and the ones coming after them will be too. They know their brand is a dinosaur on it's last breathe. ONLY by taking the voter out of the equation can they keep power.

Just saw the piece on how the North Carolina GOP is fighting tooth and nail to stop all the college kids on NC campuses from voting. They even took Boone County NC, home of Appalachian State, and have closed ALL voting booths except ONE in the whole county!!! WHy? Well, Boone's long time residents are right wing. Boones college students are not. So, they wont those college students to stop voting. Same in all the other NC college towns.

Classic equivocation.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

The great compromise

 

[FA_Q2]

I have two questions.

Why should we go back to a system that the people who were experienced with obviously thought wasn't working? History clearly indicates that, even states without any allegations of corruption and toadyism, thought direct election of Senators was beneficial. Quite a few states had move to that system even without the amendment pushing other states to adopt it, and it was ratified in less than a year, which is pretty remarkable in and of itself.

What evidence does anyone have that the 17th Amendment is responsible for the reprehensible expansion of power of the federal government? I mean, seriously, other than wanting to go back to something that clearly was highly unpopular, how do we know it would make a difference? What if it makes things worse?

Personally, I see no real argument in favor of repealing it that doesn't appeal to emotions instead of logic. No one has any evidence that direct election of Senators actually results in a loss of state power, yet they insist it somehow does. Until people can point out specifically why we should do this it looks like a step back to me.

It would make more sense to repeal the 13th Amendment, since that is the one that actually gave the federal government authority to trample state laws. It is also directly responsible for the cases which you site as a reason to overturn the 17th Amendment. It is federal law, based on the 13th Amendment, that mandates voting districts that account for race. Since the 13th predates the 17th, why blame the 17th for what the13th enabled?

Because the fix has shown to be worse than the previous problem which, indecently, was not an issue of how they were elected. Corruption has not been altered so why continue with the same failed ‘fix.’ Then you make a claim that there is nothing to show that states have lost power because the 17th. I think that is ignoring reality to be honest. We have seen a complete loss of all states power and I think that it is clearly logical to connect that with the complete loss of state representation. Essentially, we tried removing state reps and what we have ‘gained’ as a result is unsatisfactory. That is why I would support going back and seeing if we can undo some of the damage or at least halt the progress. If it makes things worse than we made a mistake and can change things from there. Personally, I see that there is evidence that we made the mistake already and we should address that.

As we established it is the 14 you would like to repeal, can you explain why? I don’t see how that is a problem.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

How about one senator?

More brainless equivocation.

 

[Dot Com]

I agree. Its a conservative plot to pack the senate w/ conservatives because there would be less people to bribe and it would therefore be cheaper for the money men who currently own Washington to buy elections

my rw friend listens to Levin but I don't listen to talk radio

 

[rightwinger]

Another way for Republicans to circumvent the popular vote

They can no longer win the Senate based on popular election. But they have managed to lock up a majority of State Legislatures

Any wonder why they want to repeal the 17th amendment?

Of course the GOP wants to eliminate more of the public voting.

They truly believe in "running it like a business" when it comes to government. Business is a dictatorship model. A single CEO calling all the shots. Power concentrated in the hands of a few. You think they believe the slugs in the mailroom or warehouse DESERVE any say-so in company operations? HELL NO. Those people need to know their place on the totem pole and shut-up.

And that's how the GOP wants government run. SMALLER government (meaning, less government workers) but, the same amount of power....just, you know, concentrated in the hands of a few- themselves of course.

They know they've lost the population. The younger generations are far more left of center than ever before, and the ones coming after them will be too. They know their brand is a dinosaur on it's last breathe. ONLY by taking the voter out of the equation can they keep power.

Just saw the piece on how the North Carolina GOP is fighting tooth and nail to stop all the college kids on NC campuses from voting. They even took Boone County NC, home of Appalachian State, and have closed ALL voting booths except ONE in the whole county!!! WHy? Well, Boone's long time residents are right wing. Boones college students are not. So, they wont those college students to stop voting. Same in all the other NC college towns.

Classic equivocation.

But spot on in defining the Republican Party of today

They are conceding they can't win widescale elections so they must concentrate on establishing small GOP pockets that can be combined to give them more representation than they earn in an open election

How?

Presidency: In Blue states, eliminate winner take all and allocate electoral votes based on congressional (gerrymandered) districts

House: Gerrymander, gerrymander, gerrymander

Senate: Repeal 17th amendment and elect Senators based on gerrymandered state district lines

 

[Crackerjaxon]

The only reasons conservatives want to stop directly electing Senators is because they can't win statewide elections

They can take statehouses however

While I am greatly disappointed in what the GOP and the conservative movement have become in recent years, the success and failure of the Republicans and Democrats is cyclical.

The impact of the 17th Amendment has been quite grievous in the long term.

Any time you give the selection of representatives to the people you are better off. I trust the judgement of the average voter over that of some politician making back room deals over who gets to be the next Senator

Then you are living a fantasy.

 

[FA_Q2]

I agree. Its a conservative plot to pack the senate w/ conservatives because there would be less people to bribe and it would therefore be cheaper for the money men who currently own Washington to buy elections

my rw friend listens to Levin but I don't listen to talk radio

Then couple it with a section that eliminates gerrymandering and calls for a redistricting. I would support that even MORE. There needs to be an end to all gerrymandering and it is clear that would be a basic need for an effective transition given that the current makeup would heavily change the makeup of the senate.

I would bet that most on the right would still resoundingly support it even though it would likely reduce republican power. I don’t care if it decimates the R’s, such NEEDS to be done.

 

[Synthaholic]

Someone please post one of Levin's suggestions that would put the Right at a disadvantage.

 

[Darkwind]

I agree. Its a conservative plot to pack the senate w/ conservatives because there would be less people to bribe and it would therefore be cheaper for the money men who currently own Washington to buy elections

my rw friend listens to Levin but I don't listen to talk radio

Isn't it interesting that for progressive-ism to thrive, they must move away from the Constitution, and that any return to Constitutional principles equals a plot to install conservatives.

What exactly do you oppose? Conservatives gaining control of the country through legal means, or progressives gaining control through illicit means?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

District lines are the sole responsibility or the State. You are wanting to take that away from the states and give it to the feds? That my idiot friend will never happen. No way would 2/3rds of the states would go for it.

 

[Avatar4321]

You want to eliminate the hold special interests have on the Federal Government? Restore the Senate to the states. When special interests can't purchase Senators by simply donating to their campaign, you will see them lose influence.

I don't know if restoring the Senate to the States will help Republicans or Democrats. Quite frankly, I don't care. But I know it's how our government was originally designed. And Id rather have the states with the power to check the Federal Government than any one party have control

 

[Papageorgio]

I agree. Its a conservative plot to pack the senate w/ conservatives because there would be less people to bribe and it would therefore be cheaper for the money men who currently own Washington to buy elections

my rw friend listens to Levin but I don't listen to talk radio

Then couple it with a section that eliminates gerrymandering and calls for a redistricting. I would support that even MORE. There needs to be an end to all gerrymandering and it is clear that would be a basic need for an effective transition given that the current makeup would heavily change the makeup of the senate.

I would bet that most on the right would still resoundingly support it even though it would likely reduce republican power. I don’t care if it decimates the R’s, such NEEDS to be done.

I agree with you, get rid of gerrymandering, most who want the repeal of the 17th amendment, also want an end to gerrymandering.

 

[PaulS1950]

Why not return to the original way that the president and vice president were elected.
Everyone votes then the first place winner is the president and the second place winner is the vice president. We could end up with a republican president and a democrat vice president or the other way around.

 

[Avatar4321]

Why not return to the original way that the president and vice president were elected.
Everyone votes then the first place winner is the president and the second place winner is the vice president. We could end up with a republican president and a democrat vice president or the other way around.

There was a reason that was done away with. Cause if we have one party as President and the other as VP, it wont take long before people started killing off the top of the ticket to get their guy in place.

 

[Dot Com]

I agree. Its a conservative plot to pack the senate w/ conservatives because there would be less people to bribe and it would therefore be cheaper for the money men who currently own Washington to buy elections

my rw friend listens to Levin but I don't listen to talk radio

Isn't it interesting that for progressive-ism to thrive, they must move away from the Constitution, and that any return to Constitutional principles equals a plot to install conservatives.

What exactly do you oppose? Conservatives gaining control of the country through legal means, or progressives gaining control through illicit means?

how is moving away from an electoral process that more easily facilitated bribes= "moving away from the Constitution"? They were basically being "appointed" just like Bush II was appointed. Don't like it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which part of "a check on federal power" do you not understand? Do you not feel a check on federal power would be better for all of us?

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

I have explained why. Over and over and over.

To. Restore. The. Check. On. Federal. Power.

The mob is not a check on federal power. The mob is always demanding, "What is the government going to do about this?" "Gimme, gimme, gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it." "Let my bank gamble with other people's money, and don't let the states stop me."

I should give up my right to vote in order to advance your wrongly perceived agenda?

lol

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

District lines are the sole responsibility or the State. You are wanting to take that away from the states and give it to the feds? That my idiot friend will never happen. No way would 2/3rds of the states would go for it.

Must you resort to ad homonyms.

Well my retarded friend (guess I’ll speak in your language) the states were willing gave away their representation and this would be little different. On top of that, this would return MORE power back to the states even without the ability to redistrict though I would NOT remove the right to do so from the states. That is an over statement by you. Instead, I would instill basic federal guidelines that would ensure that districts were not drawn to support one party over the other. Simple things like requiring them to be simple geometric shapes rather than complex jigsaw pieces might be something to consider or other measures that would help ensure that the voter distribution is not rigged. The states however would still be responsible for actually redistricting. The states are still the best entities to redistrict as they are close to the people and localities thus in a better place to determine where those lines go. There is nothing wrong with curbing corruption.

Now, let’s try something new. Try not insulting me in your next post and I will reciprocate. That way we can get above the gutter and playground bullshit and discuss this like rational adults. I know you are more than capable of that and I assure you that I am as well.