Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[PrometheusBound]

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

The Bill of Rights is Amendments. So the "original intent" was to not let us have freedom of speech, gun rights, etc. No wonder those lawyers for the colonial 1% concocted their manifesto behind closed doors! If we, the people, had found out what the Founding Fodder were up to in Constitution Hall, we would have burned the place down.

Wouldn't you know that today's theocratic creeps want us to treat the Constipation as if it were the Bible, the Founding Fodder as the Twelve Apostles, and the SCROTUS as some infallible Protestant Vatican? That is heresy, but for the Greedheads, Heirheads, Bootlickers, and Baggies, it is Heaven on Earth.

Go back to whatever schools you attended and demand a refund. You really got screwed.

"What an ugly picture," said the blind man. I was a National Merit scholar; someone with your obviously inferior IQ is incapable of judging intelligence. You just proved that "Libretardianism" is the appropriate name for your brain-dead politics. To put it in the language of one of your heroines, you just refudiated yourself.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

McCain age 76, known at the time as the most liberal of all the republicans in congress.
Romney age 66, author of obama care.

News flash: When you are old enough to receive full SS benefits you are pretty old. When you are known to support socialist policies, and warhawk foreign policies, you're not a traditional conservative, you are what we call a neo-con.

 

[PrometheusBound]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendment 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...

James Madison made many arguments and also governed in ways that had his critics of his day commenting upon his hypocrisy. James Madison also lived in an agriculturally stagnant south when America was, compared to the standards of today, a very small nation, area- wise and in population.

Make an argument with references to present day realities and you'll have a good argument, maybe.

The Senate makes its own rules. The House Congressional seats are reapportioned according to party safety. The Senate seats are still state wide. Reforming the Senate back to the future would most probably result in more problems than ones it would solve.

As President, Dolley's henpecked egghead couldn't even defeat Canada, which is easy. If you're ever attacked by a squad of Canadian soldiers, just throw them a hockey puck and they'll start fighting among themselves!

 

[PrometheusBound]

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.

The Electoral College is now unwinnable 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.

The worst is jury duty, which should be professionalized. But because no self-appointed professional opinionator addresses that, we are intimidated into not discussing any improvements we might think up entirely on our own. In reality, it is what you don't ever hear talked about that is important. What are they hiding?

 

[kwc57]

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.

I'd tell you to check for polyps while you have your head up your ass......but unfortunately you are blind as well.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

That is the most absurd statement I've seen in this thread. Or at least it's tied for the most absurd statement I've seen in this thread.

That's only because you are ignorant of how our government was designed. I don't blame you. Our educational system has been horrible for decades.

The Federal goverment was created with a bicameral legislature so that both the people and the States would have a say in our Federal Government. This was so that the Federal Government would be checked by both the people and the States.

See, in order to prevent corruption and a run away Federal government, our Founders built these checks into the system. When we passed the 17th amendment, we eliminated the check the States had on our Federal government and turned it over to the people. This through out of wack the balance of power. See when you divide power between three entities, you have a checked government. If you have only two, you have one power overwhelming the others. Our Founders realized this after studying millenia of different governments established by man.

The Senators aren't supposed to represent the people. They are supposed to represent the States. Ironically, by trying to seize the power of the states, the people handed power over to the Federal government.

 

[Avatar4321]

That is the most absurd statement I've seen in this thread. Or at least it's tied for the most absurd statement I've seen in this thread.

Then you are out of touch with reality.

First of all then, tell us what the source is for the above supposition.

The Constitution has been quoted for you multiple times telling you how the State legislatures were to pick Senators.

Now, if the Senate was supposed to represent the people, as you've been falsely claiming, why on earth would the Founders have the State legislatures pick them?

 

[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.

The vast majority of state legislators are lightweights. The people would rather vote for someone with gravitas than the pre-owned nobody those nobodies would pick for themselves. Again, this is all about having to bribe the lifelong-flunkie types in the state government rather than millions of voters.

Second, because our national senators have gravitas, they are more likely to go their own way even if they owe something to their financiers. With the nobodies in the legislatures, even if by some miracle 49% of them have something to be proud of, at least 5l % have spent their whole lives as pathetic, self-humiliating brown-noses and that's all the kingmakers need to get their bought candidate elected.

That is seriously the dumbest most unsubstantiated thing I've read in this thread so far.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Senators get 'bought off' AFTER they become senators.

Bullshit.

Senators are chosen by National Party leadership. Voters don't know who the fuck these clowns are. Power brokers in Washington decide for their party who they will appoint to be Senator - they do so by the pull each has with various corporations, unions, lobbies, and crime syndicates.

When the crooks in the DNC decide to appoint Fake Indian Elizabeth Warren, they looked at who had hands in her pockets and held her leash - the teachers union, green peace, the AFL/CIO, Kaiser and Blue Cross - and decided she was useful to the profits and goals of the party.

Voters had fuck to do with it - the only thing the voters get is a choice of Republican or democrat

In a state legislature election of senators, there might be less than ten swing votes that could needed to be 'bought off'.

It would pull the fangs of the national parties and leave the decision to the states - which would do a lot to return at least some power to the people - I know that is the opposite of what democrats seek, but for those who are not democrats and prefer liberty to authoritarianism, this would do a great deal to help.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We have a representative democracy. Look it up.

Are you in fact as ignorant as you present yourself to be?

It explains you being a leftist....

 

[Avatar4321]

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

What do you think of the rage against providing a photo I.D. to vote from the left?

What was the opinion of the founding fathers on photo ID?

So you want us to tell you what their opinion on something that hadn't been invented when they lived? How about we ask about their opinions on Iphones too?

And the left wonders why conservatives have issues with our educational system sucking as much as it does.

 

[JWBooth]

Senators get 'bought off' AFTER they become senators.

Nonsense, they are bought and paid for before they become senators, otherwise they would not be considered for nomination.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is a lot cheaper for the Koch brothers to buy off a couple of State Senate seats than a US Senate seat.

If it were cheaper and more effective for George Soros to buy off state legislators, you would be for it. That Soros programmed you to oppose this demonstrates that your claim is false.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Is it better for our Senators to be beholden to the people who elected them or the State Senators who appointed them?

Of course we know that has nothing to do with it...

Is it better for our Senators to be beholden to the national parties who appoint them on behalf of entrenched special interests, or the State Legislators (both houses) who appoint them based on state goals and needs?

 

[Avatar4321]

What was the opinion of the founding fathers on photo ID?

so now you're worried about what the founding fathers think? aside from being an idiotic post getdafugouttahere...

Good point

In 2013, why would anyone be concerned about what the founding fathers think?

Because we aren't so arrogant to presume we know better than geniuses who researched thousands of years of governments that worked and failed to create our system of government. We aren't stupid enough to think human nature has changed in the last 200 years simply because technology has. And we have enough prudence to recognize wisdom in other people.

 

[RKMBrown]

Is it better for our Senators to be beholden to the people who elected them or the State Senators who appointed them?

Of course we know that has nothing to do with it...

Is it better for our Senators to be beholden to the national parties who appoint them on behalf of entrenched special interests, or the State Legislators (both houses) who appoint them based on state goals and needs?

I suppose it depends on who is more anti-american, who is more corrupt, etc. In TX the legislators are better for the people than the republican party.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

You are making an assumption. Do you have a crystal ball stating that the State Legislature would have voted that election differently?

No I have common sense.

Since when did common sense become so stupid?

 

[PrometheusBound]

And by that statement you should want to eliminate the Senators completely. Why should a small state get the same number of Senators as a state that is 100 times it's poplulation???????????

Liberals and Dems are always fighting for MINORITY RIGHTS. When they agree with it........If they don't agree, aka Rural areas then get lost................

The very argument you are making is against the founders principles aka the election of the Senate.

I.e.......Rural areas near New York City who disagree with the city folks are so outweighed in the numbers game that they must believe their vote for a Senator is a waste of time.

Compare it to the current electoral college for the POTUS. 4 States carry the Lions share of the votes.

One person one vote is democratic. Anything else is undemocratic. Admit that it's undemocratic,

then make your case for why something undemocratic should be allowed in a democratic system.

The Founding Fathers created a Republic. Not a pure Democracy. In doing so they gave the people the reigns in the house to represent the populace. And for State Rights they gave it to the states in the Senate. Thus the Senate was to be the Representative of the State Legislature and Government. All of which had to be elected by the people.

And on and on. It was done to give the States a Direct Vote irregardless of the States party, on the Federal Gov't. It also gave them the power to get rid of the Senator and Replace him if he chose the path not represented by the Legislature. Aka A Senator with a Leash.

.

Reins, not "reigns." And "irregardless" is not a word, but it does indicate that the babbler of this contradiction is incapable of reasoning and only emits mindless outbursts.

 

[Avatar4321]

Two for two
I love you guys

You are the reason your party is doomed to fail

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 greedy
The 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

You mean the so called 50% who voted for the policies that caused the above and then complain when they have to face the consequences of those policies?

Here's a crazy idea. If you don't have bad policies which impede economic growth, you dont have to deal with the consequences of an impeded economy.

The government cannot save you. Passing a law cannot save you. As long as you abrogate your responsibilities onto the government, your responsibilities will never be taken care of.

 

[Uncensored2008]

A Senator from California does not represent the State of California.......he represents the people of California

The Senators from California, Barbra Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, represent the NEA, the AFL-CIO, SEIU, Kaiser Permanante, Blue Cross, Bank of America, and the national democratic party.

Neither one would piss on a citizen of California if they were on fire - they don't give a fuck about California - they serve national masters.