Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[Intense]

The infallibility of Madison has been ruled 'bullshit'

No one said he was infallible, dumbass, but he was a genius who helped design a system to keep individual factions from dominating the system, and idjits like you have cleared the way for the Wall Street thieves to take everything over.

And you don't even realize it because you are an arrogant fool.

Fool? Okay clueless one, on constitutional and governing issues aas well as political ones, I side mostly with Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Chief Justice Marshall.

See? Duelling Framers. LOL

Washington basically let Hamilton run the show, the Whiskey Rebellion, The Alien and Sedition Acts, the Birth of Statism. Adams woke up to the threat, a little late, but at least he figured it out. Marshal had no place being involved with Marbury V. Madison, having personal involvement in the case. That was the end of 3 Coequal Branches of Government right there. There were 2 Hamiltons, Pre Ratification Hamilton and Post Ratification Hamilton. Dr. Jeckll and Mr. Hyde. There were those that believed in Federalism, and those that used it as a tool to establish their Oligarchy. The money trail puts big business right in bed with the Federal Government. Hamilton: The Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States, 1791

 

[Intense]

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.

heres whats wrong with that Idea and both sides of the Isle should be concerned with your opinion and why its bad one ... depending how rich you are, one could buy their seat, as many did back then ... or one can load the senate with the majority of them democrats or the majority of republicans .... thats why it was bad idea back then and a bad Idea now I quite fine with the idea of electing the senate seats

What the Constitution does not have is a defense against Party interests. The problem is the individual Members confusing their loyalty to their constituents with the loyalty to their Party. At least with States choosing who represents them in the Senate, there is some continuity with the Individual State, and the Senate, in a way, that the respective States, have a say in the process. As far as corruption is concerned, there is no immunity, regardless of the process.Human nature is what it is.

 

[rightwinger]

Repeal of the 17th amendment allows Republicans to get Senate seats without having to deal with the pesky voters

Other than that, make voting more difficult. Cut down on polling places and hours. Make people stand on line. Demand increasingly difficult ID.

The Electoral College is now unwinable for a GOP candidate. Get Republican controlled blue states to split their electoral votes while red states remain all or nothing

Gerrymander, gerrymander, gerrymander to make sure Republicans control the House even though they get fewer votes

This is the political future of the GOP

In other words you're afraid of the system working as intended, a Republic, not a Corporate Oligarchy.

I would argue that is not how it was intended for the system to work

We should be encouraging all Americans to vote and do whatever is possible to make voting more accessable.

 

[rightwinger]

Well you're a little slow actually. Once the paul's can only survive by making the peter's pay their way and have the ability to vote for that outcome we are pretty much f*cked as a nation.

The party may be doomed to fail but the demise of the US is the result of that failure. When you wake up to living in a communist system you have nobody to blame for it than you. No more individual success, no more individual decisions the government will decide for you. As if they have your best interest at heart.

I'm guessing you're too stupid to follow this logic.

You fail to understand that 50% that you so despise

They once thought they had caught the American dream. They worked hard, had good benefits, we're starting to save some money...
Then something strange happened. People they didn't know made some bad investments, overextended, got greedyThe job market collapsed, once stable jobs became part time. No benefits, no insurance, you make 60% of what you used to.
Meanwhile, your bills go up. Your car breaks down, your wife gets sick. The kids want to go to college

These are the 50% that you mock

Bullshit. Greed didn't cause our financial problems over the last ten years or so. It was misguided good intentions using OTHER PEOLES MONEY. The Feds forced banks to loan money to people that NEVER had any business getting those loans. You Democraps exploited the system o soak Fannie May and Freddie Mack and stuck the tax payer with the bill. Over $ 13 TRILLION has been given to Wall Street banks since 2008, and that has been on OBAMAs watch, not Bushes.

You fucking lying bastards.

It was not the 50% of Americans who control 2 tenths of a percent of the nations wealth that caused the collapse. It was the financial sector looking for short term profits regardless of the risk. It was those who had money trying to make more money and make it fast. It was deregulation and looking the other way

Only problem was that after the collapse and the dust settled it was the lower 50% of Americans who ended up holding the bag through loss of jobs, loss of benefits and a loss of their American dream

 

[freedombecki]

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:



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.



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.

heres whats wrong with that Idea and both sides of the Isle should be concerned with your opinion and why its bad one ... depending how rich you are, one could buy their seat, as many did back then ... or one can load the senate with the majority of them democrats or the majority of republicans .... thats why it was bad idea back then and a bad Idea now I quite fine with the idea of electing the senate seats

What the Constitution does not have is a defense against Party interests. The problem is the individual Members confusing their loyalty to their constituents with the loyalty to their Party. At least with States choosing who represents them in the Senate, there is some continuity with the Individual State, and the Senate, in a way, that the respective States, have a say in the process. As far as corruption is concerned, there is no immunity, regardless of the process.Human nature is what it is.

I think you nailed it.

On this side of heaven, anyway.

I'm out of rep, and this is one of the best posts ever. *sigh*

 

[rightwinger]

The party may be doomed to fail but the demise of the US is the result of that failure. When you wake up to living in a communist system you have nobody to blame for it than you. No more individual success, no more individual decisions the government will decide for you. As if they have your best interest at heart.

I'm guessing you're too stupid to follow this logic.

We'll only be a Communist state for a few months, after that the Oathkeepers will rally more than 80% of the military against the Communist pigs.

It will be a bloodbath, but the economy will be booming shortly after when we restore Gold and Silver Coin, there will be plenty of employment opportunity in repairing the destroyed infrastructure of the United States from the Revolution for a couple of decades.

Oathkeepers?


LOL

 

[P@triot]

Huh?

Your category of "small minded academics and fools" would include the FF since they wrote the Constitution in the first place moron.

I realize 'reading and comprehension' is not your strong suit, but come on...the ff are not here arguing to go back in time. They left us a document and history worth defending and amending, but I doubt they wanted the USC to be considered a sacred text written in stone by a deity.

Madison even argued that one should not look to the framers (the founders are a different grouping) for interpretation and meaning, but to look to 'the people' who ratified the text and what they who gave it power tbought they were ratifying.

imagine that

And therein lies the difference. You "doubt" whereas I KNOW. You "doubt" out of willful ignorance. I KNOW because I've read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and more.

The founders wrote a legal document. They signed it. They did this so it would be "written in stone" until such time as it was legally altered through the proper amendment process.

It really is that simple

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. All elected officials should be elected by the people, one vote per person. We need to do away with the Electoral College.

Conservatives are always looking for an angle that will let the guy with fewer votes than the other guy still manage to win,

because that is conservatism's only hope.

 

[PrometheusBound]

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 achieving 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.[/QUOTE]


Why would any respectable party be supported by the nasty paranoiac fanatics who post here? What you see is what you get. "Spittle COMMNISS!!! sputter SOACHLESS!!! drool LIBTARD!!!

This Libretardian posting frenzy indicates that they are so excited about this opportunity to impose their tyranny over the majority that their eyeballs pop out. Salivating over the possibilities in this scam, they bluster and bloviate and pop out Cracker Jack pixels. Since such dumb jock bullies and their anal-retentive yes men can only succeed through intimidation, they screech out scare stories on how the 17th Amendment caused EVERY NATIONAL DISASTER OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY!!! "Run for your lives! Only absolute rule by the 1% can save us from the Zombieland mob!"

I notice that they have rolled away from their original spin that elected senators are beholden to the national parties, those invisible cabals of socialists or crony capitalists, and not loyal to the senators' own states. As anyone not deafened by these Bootlickers' rhetoric can point out, our senators are no such strawmen. An Iowa senator, for example, will support farmers over the objections of the city snobs in the national party, whom, the Libretardians warn us, he really represents. When this lie didn't fly, the Ayn Randies came up with the angle of glorifying the dumb nobodies in the state legislatures, who, with their secret wisdom, know what their states need (more payoffs to the state legislators?) as opposed to the mooching fool voters who don't know what is best for them. The exception to that would be Kentucky, where the enlightened voters (probably stoned from sniffing the Derby winner's doped horse manure) elected the Libretardian pope, Paul II.

 

[NYcarbineer]

For the ignorant among you who keep rambling on about the supposed big difference between a republic and a democracy,

let Jefferson explain it:

"For let it be agreed that a government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns (not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city, or small township, but) by representatives chosen by himself, and responsible to him at short periods, and let us bring to the test of this canon every branch of our constitution."

Get it? A republic is a democracy, but for reasons of practicality, it is not a direct democracy.

Letter to Samuel Kercheval | Teaching American History

 

[kwc57]

Repeal of the 17th amendment allows Republicans to get Senate seats without having to deal with the pesky voters

Other than that, make voting more difficult. Cut down on polling places and hours. Make people stand on line. Demand increasingly difficult ID.

The Electoral College is now unwinable for a GOP candidate. Get Republican controlled blue states to split their electoral votes while red states remain all or nothing

Gerrymander, gerrymander, gerrymander to make sure Republicans control the House even though they get fewer votes

This is the political future of the GOP

Here's a napkin. You have a little bullshit in the corner of your mouth.

 

[PrometheusBound]

It's hard to imagine someone more confused. First, you are against the "tyranny of the majority," a snobbish phrase invented by a FRENCH!!! aristocrat whose family unfortunately escaped the guillotine.

The French Revolution failed, because the Mob Rule of the Majority quickly lead to oligarchy and the Reign of Terror.

Then you call oligarchy "Communist." Well, the only way to protect us from an oligarchy is absolute rule of the majority.

Ancient Greece (Athens) proves you wrong, as does revolutionary France, Absolute Rule of the Majority always descends into oligarchy, and would be expected to, how can each individual communicate with every other individual in finite time?

A group of 1,000,000 people would have to talk and interact with each of the other 999,999 people before making a decision.

There's not enough time for this (nor willpower), so the system quickly descends to oligarchy.

Also, did you just openly support Communism?

You swallow the 1%'s distortions of history. The French Revolution was led by the lawyer flunkies of the spoiled-rotten aristocracy, who finally tired of doing all the work for the lazy Heirheads but also despised the people. They used the people to guillotine the rich thieves; the people did not rule the Robespierres. Then another aristocrat, jealous because he wasn't born with a high enough rank, class-climbed to the top as higher heads were separated from their bodies. That was Napoleon.

Even after Solon created a semi-democratic government, ancient Athens was still dominated by Heirheads, who had the leisure time to develop sophistic rhetorical skills and bamboozle the majority. As in the formerly United States, the unprivileged had been trained from childhood on to worship the Heirhead slime and hold no suspicions against them. This also accounts for the lie that Athenians tolerated homosexuality and pedophilia. That was only a fad of the born rich, who could get away with anything. In Plato's Symposium, the pedophile philosophers even come right out and say that heterosexuality is a vulgar practice of the inferior common people, whom conceited Low IQ Libretardians always refer to as a "mob." Without Daddy's Money or humiliating class-climbing bootlicking, you'd all be living in trailer parks.

 

[kwc57]

The law of unintended consequences aside, the 17th addressed an issue of the day. Conservatives and others always want to go back to the future. It is what happens when there is a vacuum of leadership and an empty chasm of ideas.

Madison's arguments addressed a reality that existed in a different time politically, economically, socially...you name it.

Thomas Jefferson imagined a past that never existed and he is still quoted as an authority for ideas too. Americans are amusing

Imagine the things we could do if we got rid of that pesky old constitution. I see why you like Obama.

 

[kwc57]

See the above? This is what conservatism is all about...attacking someone for wanting their right to vote,

and the right to have their vote count for something.

Look, they finally purged the board of TM. We really don't need a replacement. Quit lying.

What do you contest? That I was attacked for complaining about the idea of losing my right to vote?

Because like TM, you are a one trick pony making strawmen and talking out of your ass. Who exactly is taking away your right to vote and how is it being done?

 

[kwc57]

Repeal of the 17th amendment allows Republicans to get Senate seats without having to deal with the pesky voters

Other than that, make voting more difficult. Cut down on polling places and hours. Make people stand on line. Demand increasingly difficult ID.

The Electoral College is now unwinable for a GOP candidate. Get Republican controlled blue states to split their electoral votes while red states remain all or nothing

Gerrymander, gerrymander, gerrymander to make sure Republicans control the House even though they get fewer votes

This is the political future of the GOP

Republicans are always seeking ways to not deal with pesky voters.

Republicans have realized that their agenda no longer appeals to current voter demographics. Now, the logical solution would be to change your agenda. But the Republican solution is to keep your agenda and change the rules to allow you to either rule from a minority position or at least block the other guys agenda

Except that Republicans hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures and the house. No......they don't appeal to current voter demographics at all.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans are always seeking ways to not deal with pesky voters.

Republicans have realized that their agenda no longer appeals to current voter demographics. Now, the logical solution would be to change your agenda. But the Republican solution is to keep your agenda and change the rules to allow you to either rule from a minority position or at least block the other guys agenda

Except that Republicans hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures and the house. No......they don't appeal to current voter demographics at all.

They sure do

And they have used that card to try to seize control of the Federal Government

 

[RKMBrown]

Republicans are always seeking ways to not deal with pesky voters.

Republicans have realized that their agenda no longer appeals to current voter demographics. Now, the logical solution would be to change your agenda. But the Republican solution is to keep your agenda and change the rules to allow you to either rule from a minority position or at least block the other guys agenda

Except that Republicans hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures and the house. No......they don't appeal to current voter demographics at all.

The last two elections show that the people don't want a 100year old neo-con republican in the white house.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Republicans have realized that their agenda no longer appeals to current voter demographics. Now, the logical solution would be to change your agenda. But the Republican solution is to keep your agenda and change the rules to allow you to either rule from a minority position or at least block the other guys agenda

Except that Republicans hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures and the house. No......they don't appeal to current voter demographics at all.

The last two elections show that the people don't want a 100year old neo-con republican in the white house.

100 year old? Neo-con?

Your dishonesty enhances your sheer stupidity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Look, they finally purged the board of TM. We really don't need a replacement. Quit lying.

What do you contest? That I was attacked for complaining about the idea of losing my right to vote?

Because like TM, you are a one trick pony making strawmen and talking out of your ass. Who exactly is taking away your right to vote and how is it being done?

Do I really have to post everything twice, especially when it's obvious?

If direct election of Senators is ended, I lose my right to vote for my Senators.

My right to vote for senators is taken from me and transferred to my representative legislators,

BUT, (pay attention) I may not have even voted for them in the first place, and they may now cast MY vote for senator, which they have taken from me,

for someone I don't support.

 

[JWBooth]

I'll take Levin seriously in his drive to reform the country when he comes out in favor of repealing the 19th.