Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[RKMBrown]

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

The day will come that you will be the victim of the mob. And on that day there will be great celebration.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

To the extent you can buy off a Senator, once in office, you can do that whether the People or the legislature put him in office. How he got there is irrelevant.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I pray some day that you will be the victim of the mob. And on that day I hope no one comes to your aid.

If you're elitist enough to believe that the People cannot be considered anything better than a mob,

then you're out of place in a democratic country.

The mob, btw, elect the House of Representatives, which is currently a rightwing nuthouse. Is that the problem with the 'mob' that you have?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Areas don't have rights. People do. The rural guy gets one vote, the city guy gets one vote...

...any other system is undemocratic. If you believe there is a greater good achieved when the system is made undemocratic, fine,

make that case. Just don't deny that it's undemocratic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The day will come that you will be the victim of the mob. And on that day there will be great celebration.

I already explained that electing Senators the old way would make me the victim of the 'mob' of Republicans in my district. They would assure that I have no say in electing my Senators.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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)

No.

That's the problem with Libtard, some things actually take 1000 words to explain.

The Constitution is not some random idea drawn from scratch at the time of the Convention.

The Constitution was based on over 3000 years of human history, failures and successes. It took very learned and wise men to create the Miracle called the Constitution of the United States.

Do you think Freedom of the Press was someone new idea they hatched in Philadelphia? No, that came from over a century of experience of tyranny via Sedition laws from the Crown, and Peter Zenger, a Jewish journalist, was spared at the hands of his peers through Jury Nullification. And Freedom of the Press was born.

The right to bear arms, this comes from over 850 years of experience from the Magna Charta, to the Stuart Kings to Lexington and Concord.

The Third Amendment comes from British occupation of entire cities, like Boston, hence the Boston Massacre.

The Fourth Amendment came from people like John Hancock being politically targeted by General and Vague Search Warrants (titled Writs of Assistance), and then dragging them off, on phony warrants and PLANTED evidence, into an Admiralty Court WITHOUT a jury.

This is the problem with Libtards, they think everything has a 10 word explanation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The senate used to represent the interests of the state legislatures, now it represents the popular vote. How hard is that for you to understand?

The interests of the State Legislatures?

Shouldn't they represent the interests of people?

Who elects the state legislature? The people. What does the state legislature do? Represent the interests of the people. See how that works?

Then you like the idea that Scott Brown could not have gotten elected in Massachusetts?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

In Illinois, we need the 17th. Without it, we would not have our one Republican Senator. The House and Senate are always controlled by the nasty Dimocrats. In the last Governor's election, the D gov won 3 counties out of 102. One of course was Cook, or Chicago. The taxes from all over the state go disproportionally to Chicago, the bastion of The Chicago Political Mob!

Maybe you all should assert your Ninth Amendment sovereignty and withdraw Consent, have all the Counties pass resolutions rebuking Chicago from the State itself.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It doesn't matter. The 17th amendment means the People and States decided otherwise.

So the topic is to repeal the 17th and your argument is we should not repeal the 17th because the 17th was approved in 1913.

What a brilliant repose.

Its about as brilliant as your reasoning that we should go back to the way it was just because that was the way it was.

Look, sorry - you're not going to turn democracy around. What started as an oligarchy of white male property owners is no more. You're going to have to get used to it. Besides, most of the white males on this board probably wouldn't have owned enough property in 1789 to be allowed to vote.

The difference is that we have empirical data, uncontested and well-documented experience from history for over 3000 to 4500 years, from the Code of Hammurabi, to Athens, to Rome, to feudalism, to the Enlightenment, to the Modern Era, in order to back up our reasoning. And when we demonstrate that superior wisdom, people like NYcarbineer complain that the explanation contains too many words.

What evidence do you have to support your reasoning, other than you Libtards congratulating each other for your "brilliant one-liners."

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Sensitive are ya?

I don't follow your logic (if it can be called that), you're saying the states will have more power by ceding the power that they now have to the federal government.

I can't speak for all states but Texas has been drawing their own district lines for a long time and I have see no corruption. And since you seem to be concerned with gerrymandering, gerrymandering has also secured representation for minority groups. It really depends on who is in control of the state legislature at the time.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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.

To the extent you can buy off a Senator, once in office, you can do that whether the People or the legislature put him in office. How he got there is irrelevant.

So your post was pointless.

Must everything be explained to you?

 

[rightwinger]

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)

No.

That's the problem with Libtard, some things actually take 1000 words to explain.

The Constitution is not some random idea drawn from scratch at the time of the Convention.

The Constitution was based on over 3000 years of human history, failures and successes. It took very learned and wise men to create the Miracle called the Constitution of the United States.

Do you think Freedom of the Press was someone new idea they hatched in Philadelphia? No, that came from over a century of experience of tyranny via Sedition laws from the Crown, and Peter Zenger, a Jewish journalist, was spared at the hands of his peers through Jury Nullification. And Freedom of the Press was born.

The right to bear arms, this comes from over 850 years of experience from the Magna Charta, to the Stuart Kings to Lexington and Concord.

The Third Amendment comes from British occupation of entire cities, like Boston, hence the Boston Massacre.

The Fourth Amendment came from people like John Hancock being politically targeted by General and Vague Search Warrants (titled Writs of Assistance), and then dragging them off, on phony warrants and PLANTED evidence, into an Admiralty Court WITHOUT a jury.

This is the problem with Libtards, they think everything has a 10 word explanation.

Rambling and doesn't provide any justification for repeal of the 17th

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

[MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION]

You're not only talking to a brick wall, but a brick skyscraper reinforced with steel. He's a hired disinfo agent working for the DHS, it's his job to disagree with you on this subject, that's what he gets paid for. Just keep exposing his stupidity. That's the only measure of redress against the swarm of government hired internet trolls.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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

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

Areas don't have rights. People do. The rural guy gets one vote, the city guy gets one vote...

...any other system is undemocratic. If you believe there is a greater good achieved when the system is made undemocratic, fine,

make that case. Just don't deny that it's undemocratic.

Did I, or did I not, refer to the populations of those areas?

Arguing that a republic is not a democracy is almost as dense as misreading my original post.

 

[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)

No.

That's the problem with Libtard, some things actually take 1000 words to explain.

The Constitution is not some random idea drawn from scratch at the time of the Convention.

The Constitution was based on over 3000 years of human history, failures and successes. It took very learned and wise men to create the Miracle called the Constitution of the United States.

Do you think Freedom of the Press was someone new idea they hatched in Philadelphia? No, that came from over a century of experience of tyranny via Sedition laws from the Crown, and Peter Zenger, a Jewish journalist, was spared at the hands of his peers through Jury Nullification. And Freedom of the Press was born.

The right to bear arms, this comes from over 850 years of experience from the Magna Charta, to the Stuart Kings to Lexington and Concord.

The Third Amendment comes from British occupation of entire cities, like Boston, hence the Boston Massacre.

The Fourth Amendment came from people like John Hancock being politically targeted by General and Vague Search Warrants (titled Writs of Assistance), and then dragging them off, on phony warrants and PLANTED evidence, into an Admiralty Court WITHOUT a jury.

This is the problem with Libtards, they think everything has a 10 word explanation.

Where did denying women the right to vote come from?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

If I may infer, I believe [MENTION=34052]g5000[/MENTION] was in Limbo during the time of that post, very much how I was mid-December after the Sandy Hook shooting, when I was still a Democrat ---

AND GOD SAID: LET THERE BE LIGHT

And then I had an epiphany.

I believe that's what happened to g5000.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Areas don't have rights. People do. The rural guy gets one vote, the city guy gets one vote...

...any other system is undemocratic. If you believe there is a greater good achieved when the system is made undemocratic, fine,

make that case. Just don't deny that it's undemocratic.

Did I, or did I not, refer to the populations of those areas?

Arguing that a republic is not a democracy is almost as dense as misreading my original post.

You referred to disenfranchising those populations. Please post what definition of 'disenfranchise' you're using.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

This question is a trap for Progressives.

If they answer yes, then they must immediately devise pre-1913 Senate-like system.

 

[Avatar4321]

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

lol

The day will come that you will be the victim of the mob. And on that day there will be great celebration.

I already explained that electing Senators the old way would make me the victim of the 'mob' of Republicans in my district. They would assure that I have no say in electing my Senators.

"Your" Senators are not supposed to represent you. They are supposed to represent your state government.

I don't understand how we can explain this more clearly. The House of Representatives is the House that represents the peoplel. The Senate is supposed to represent the States. They are not supposed to represent you. They are supposed to act as a check against you and against the overreach of the Federal government.

The fact that you think they represent you tells me and everyone else who knows better that you have no freakin clue how our government was designed.

 

[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.

This question is a trap for Progressives.

If they answer yes, then they must immediately devise pre-1913 Senate-like system.

Im not trying to trap anyone. Im trying to get to the heart of the matter. Should the States have a check on the Federal Government?