Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[Uncensored2008]

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.

That's the point. Even if the legislators are bought off, they will be bought off by local interests rather than national ones, and still provide more service to the states.

Andrew Carnegie moaned that while he had New York and New Jersey Senators in his pocket, there was nothing he could do to control a Senator in Montana or Idaho. This situation severely disrupted the oligarchy. Morgan, Carnegie, et al, owned the democratic party through Tammany Hall - but could not control the states West of the Mississippi. The 17th put Senate selection in the hands of the national parties - thus in the hands of Tammany Hall and the Oligarchs. Soros has replaced Tammany as the owner of the democratic party - but the need to have Senators appointed by the national party remains vital to the goals of oligarchs.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

That's the point. Even if the legislators are bought off, they will be bought off by local interests rather than national ones, and still provide more service to the states.

Andrew Carnegie moaned that while he had New York and New Jersey Senators in his pocket, there was nothing he could do to control a Senator in Montana or Idaho. This situation severely disrupted the oligarchy. Morgan, Carnegie, et al, owned the democratic party through Tammany Hall - but could not control the states West of the Mississippi. The 17th put Senate selection in the hands of the national parties - thus in the hands of Tammany Hall and the Oligarchs. Soros has replaced Tammany as the owner of the democratic party - but the need to have Senators appointed by the national party remains vital to the goals of oligarchs.

If history has shown us anything, it's that there are a great number of people that can be bought.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Hey, you want the founders to be treated as gods. I thought gods had all the answers lol.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No

I have a problem accepting them as a viable military force

Perhaps, but you do hate any who would keep an oath.

Party alone - da Comrade?

 

[eflatminor]

All elected officials should be elected by the people, one vote per person. We need to do away with the Electoral College.

Sure, wouldn't it be just fantastic for the country if New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles decided all federal elections...

A rural voter deserves no more power than an urban voter.

No urban voters outside of those cities...

You have no clue what federalism is all about. States are supposed to retain some powers, which direct federal elections would completely eliminate.

Jesus, you do worship at the alter of the central planners, don't you? God you're stupid. You're TM's sock, aren't you?

 

[Uncensored2008]

If history has shown us anything, it's that there are a great number of people that can be bought.

Also that when the customer base is broader, collusion is hampered.

State legislatures will be influenced by local concerns, and not by national interests. Blue Cross and Kaiser seek a federally mandated monopoly, with forced customers using the power and implied violence of the Federal Government. Buying off the DNC and RNC is far easier than buying off the legislatures of 50 states. Would Obama's fascist care be possible without the 17th? Would Senators be pushed by state legislators to favor medical interests of their own states rather than the California and Chicago behemoths that are now virtually part of the government?

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Hey, you want the founders to be treated as gods. I thought gods had all the answers lol.

In other words, "I cant win this argument on the merits so I have to create a straw man."

Unfortunately, totally predictable.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Believing that the Constitution is some kind of Bible is heresy. I think you Biblebangers have been banging it against your heads too long to make you so worship secular entities. The "Founding Fathers" were not the "divinely inspired Evangelists" either. Their political science was no more advanced than the physical science of their time. And as far as your precious Amendments go, this primitive fascist document was written to discourage amending its self-defined overlordship on the people's will.

The Constitution doesn't have to be a Bible to be inspired by God. And yes it was inspired by God. Because it provided for the liberty of the people with it's checks and balances. The Spirit of God is the Spirit of Liberty.

Thanks to the inspiration of George Mason and his contemporaries who argued for Article V to have an amendment process outside of Congress, the people very much have a valve to amend the Constitution. And that's provided through it's state legislators calling for a convention to amend.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Hey, you want the founders to be treated as gods. I thought gods had all the answers lol.

In other words, "I cant win this argument on the merits so I have to create a straw man."

Unfortunately, totally predictable.

So you've never invoked the founders to bolster an argument?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No, they were not. That is a talking point.

The people elect their State Legislation.

The State Legislation appoints the US Senators.

How is it that you can trust elected representatives to write laws that affect your every day life, but think that these same representatives are corrupt when it comes to appointing a US Senator?

The current way of electing Senators is twice as rife with corruption as the
original Constitutional method.

To paraphrase Henry: For every complex problem there iz a simple solution as wrong as it is appealing.

I prefer representative democracy to that dreaded popular democracy, but state houses appointing US Senators is a terrible idea pushed by small minded academics and fools

Saying it is a terrible idea is like saying it is a terrible idea to use a hammer on a nail rather than a bolt cutter.

One first must understand the purpose of the tool, and how best it can be applied. The US Senate is not there to represent the will of the people of their state in a direct manner. They are there to protect and advocate for the State. This means that if the State decides on an issue, the Senator is obligated to vote in that manner. You could look at the State as the Senators constituent.

Your grasp of the concept of 'representative' governgovernment is inadequate to the argument. There are reasons the framers agreed to compromise as they did. No plebicites to demand and obligate how a Senator would vote. The US Senate was designed to be a deliberative body meant to put the brakes on the passionate and emotional demands of their respective state constituencies.

Elected leaders are expected to vote their conscience and then face an election battle. Governing has usually been seperate from the most rabid and partisan of politics, but what we see today is the fruits of a long and drawn out fight by the right wing in america to redo the republic in their twisted dreams

US Senators have historically been lauded with praise for deliberating and voting conscience over the emotionally passionate demands of the public 'back home.' That is until the right wing discovered the attractions and power of single issue politics and their ability to divide andd demonize

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sure, wouldn't it be just fantastic for the country if New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles decided all federal elections...

A rural voter deserves no more power than an urban voter.

No urban voters outside of those cities...

You have no clue what federalism is all about. States are supposed to retain some powers, which direct federal elections would completely eliminate.

Jesus, you do worship at the alter of the central planners, don't you? God you're stupid. You're TM's sock, aren't you?

Just explain to me why the democratic foundational principle, one man, one vote, should be discarded to the detriment of the city man, and to the undemocratic advantage of the rural man.

What greater good is sufficient to overthrow that basic principle?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hey, you want the founders to be treated as gods. I thought gods had all the answers lol.

In other words, "I cant win this argument on the merits so I have to create a straw man."

Unfortunately, totally predictable.

So you've never invoked the founders to bolster an argument?

Methinks she hides behind rather than invokes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, they were not. That is a talking point.

The people elect their State Legislation.

The State Legislation appoints the US Senators.

How is it that you can trust elected representatives to write laws that affect your every day life, but think that these same representatives are corrupt when it comes to appointing a US Senator?

The current way of electing Senators is twice as rife with corruption as the
original Constitutional method.

To paraphrase Henry: For every complex problem there iz a simple solution as wrong as it is appealing.

I prefer representative democracy to that dreaded popular democracy, but state houses appointing US Senators is a terrible idea pushed by small minded academics and fools

Saying it is a terrible idea is like saying it is a terrible idea to use a hammer on a nail rather than a bolt cutter.

One first must understand the purpose of the tool, and how best it can be applied. The US Senate is not there to represent the will of the people of their state in a direct manner. They are there to protect and advocate for the State. This means that if the State decides on an issue, the Senator is obligated to vote in that manner. You could look at the State as the Senators constituent.

Then your position must be that the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts was a grave injustice to the state of Massachusetts caused by the evils of the direct election of Senators.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your grasp of the concept of 'representative' governgovernment is inadequate to the argument. There are reasons the framers agreed to compromise as they did. No plebicites to demand and obligate how a Senator would vote. The US Senate was designed to be a deliberative body meant to put the brakes on the passionate and emotional demands of their respective state constituencies.

Elected leaders are expected to vote their conscience and then face an election battle. Governing has usually been seperate from the most rabid and partisan of politics, but what we see today is the fruits of a long and drawn out fight by the right wing in america to redo the republic in their twisted dreams

US Senators have historically been lauded with praise for deliberating and voting conscience over the emotionally passionate demands of the public 'back home.' That is until the right wing discovered the attractions and power of single issue politics and their ability to divide andd demonize

Dainty - I thought you were posting as the sock "promethiusbound" these days?

 

[Avatar4321]

Hey, you want the founders to be treated as gods. I thought gods had all the answers lol.

In other words, "I cant win this argument on the merits so I have to create a straw man."

Unfortunately, totally predictable.

So you've never invoked the founders to bolster an argument?

Citing the Founders in talking about their intent for various provisions of the Constitution they wrote isn't the equivalent of Deifying them.

Again, can't win on the merits, so you set up straw men.

 

[Avatar4321]

A rural voter deserves no more power than an urban voter.

No urban voters outside of those cities...

You have no clue what federalism is all about. States are supposed to retain some powers, which direct federal elections would completely eliminate.

Jesus, you do worship at the alter of the central planners, don't you? God you're stupid. You're TM's sock, aren't you?

Just explain to me why the democratic foundational principle, one man, one vote, should be discarded to the detriment of the city man, and to the undemocratic advantage of the rural man.

What greater good is sufficient to overthrow that basic principle?

Because we live in a REPUBLIC with CHECKS and BALANCES

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

We are admitting it's undemocratic, because this country is NOT a Democracy; Article IV, Section 4 clearly states that we are a REPUBLIC.

True Democracy = smoke and mirrors for an Oligarchy.

[MENTION=42689]The2ndAmendment[/MENTION]

we have a republican form of government but our electoral system is a form of democracy.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

As if the passage of time transcends all of human history and experience.

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

yet you advocate repeating the failures and flaws of Madison

Oh the irony

Madison or Hamilton?

Madison and states rights

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

If you people are going to argue for what the framers understood and what they meant, you must look at Marshall's involvement in the context of their times...it was not unusual and there was no serious inherent conflict argument made at that time, was there?

Big business? The wealthiest men in America provoked and backed the revolution. Men of property and what you would call 'big business' people like you need to stop jumping between eras and time. You either argue within a certain context or you do not

[MENTION=20285]Intense[/MENTION]

Hamilton fought fiercely to help ratify a document that was more to Madison's liking than Hamilton's, and it was Jefferson and Madison as well as Hamilton, who had many faces in a few short years. Marshall was the saviour of the American experiment

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

State governments gerrymandered the Congressional districts, yeah they are soooooo much better at this,