Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[Procrustes Stretched]

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*

[MENTION=29697]freedombecki[/MENTION] Oh pshaw!

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

I posted Jefferson's definition of a republic and I think it's the right one.

Not yours.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

It's ironic that a guy like 2nd Amendment blathers on and on about states rights then chooses a constitutional amendment for his username.

They love the power of the big central government when it suits them.

 

[g5000]

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?

It has been explaind to you many, many times. The concept appears to be so alien to you as to be completely incomprehensible to your impenetrable ignorance.

If that is not an indication of how corrupting the 17th amendment has been to our Republic, nothing is.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

There was almost a defense, one of the original Amendments of the BIll of RIghts, that wasn't included, was to maintain a 1:30,000 ratio of Representatives to Population.

Today the ratio is 1:700,000 since the Progressives capped the House at 435.

That means we would have over 12,000 Representatives in the House today. No party could reasonably control such a number, and those Representatives would also be subject to their local populations, unlike today.

Instead of Two major parties, you would have Two or Three major "classifications," such as Federalist, Libertarian or Statist, and then you would have each of these three major "classifications" divided into many different factions and subgroups. This result is GUARANTEED, because there is simply not enough time in a day, month or even a year for a single party to manage and intimidate 4000-6000 people.

Not to mention this makes the whole "buying the politician" thing much less efficient, since they would only be 1 among 12,000.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It's ironic that a guy like 2nd Amendment blathers on and on about states rights then chooses a constitutional amendment for his username.

They love the power of the big central government when it suits them.

Can you explain where I have advocated for Big Gov?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It was not the 50% of Americans who control 2 tenths of a percent of the nations wealth that caused the collapse.

Right about his, wrong about everything that followed.

IN fact 99.99% of Americans are not responsible for the collapse of the US wealth.

It's the federal reserve and the mass printing of money.

 

[g5000]

There was almost a defense, one of the original Amendments of the BIll of RIghts, that wasn't included, was to maintain a 1:30,000 ratio of Representatives to Population.

Today the ratio is 1:700,000 since the Progressives capped the House at 435.

That means we would have over 12,000 Representatives in the House today. No party could reasonably control such a number, and those Representatives would also be subject to their local populations, unlike today.

Instead of Two major parties, you would have Two or Three major "classifications," such as Federalist, Libertarian or Statist, and then you would have each of these three major "classifications" divided into many different factions and subgroups. This result is GUARANTEED, because there is simply not enough time in a day, month or even a year for a single party to manage and intimidate 4000-6000 people.

Not to mention this makes the whole "buying the politician" thing much less efficient, since they would only be 1 among 12,000.

Federalist 10:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

That "basic principal," as you conceive it, has never been in-force in this country.

 

[g5000]

It's ironic that a guy like 2nd Amendment blathers on and on about states rights then chooses a constitutional amendment for his username.

They love the power of the big central government when it suits them.

Can you explain where I have advocated for Big Gov?

You sound like you want 12,000 Representatives. That's big government.

Can you imagine 12,000 Congressman spending money to bring home the bacon to get re-elected? Astronomical spending.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

There was almost a defense, one of the original Amendments of the BIll of RIghts, that wasn't included, was to maintain a 1:30,000 ratio of Representatives to Population.

Today the ratio is 1:700,000 since the Progressives capped the House at 435.

That means we would have over 12,000 Representatives in the House today. No party could reasonably control such a number, and those Representatives would also be subject to their local populations, unlike today.

Instead of Two major parties, you would have Two or Three major "classifications," such as Federalist, Libertarian or Statist, and then you would have each of these three major "classifications" divided into many different factions and subgroups. This result is GUARANTEED, because there is simply not enough time in a day, month or even a year for a single party to manage and intimidate 4000-6000 people.

Not to mention this makes the whole "buying the politician" thing much less efficient, since they would only be 1 among 12,000.

Federalist 10:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

Then what I said agrees with Federalist 10.
We haven't reached the right "Limit" because we are all subject to the Cabals of a Few.

435 Reps is too easy for the "cabals of a few" to control.

So thank you for reinforcing my argument.

 

[g5000]

There was almost a defense, one of the original Amendments of the BIll of RIghts, that wasn't included, was to maintain a 1:30,000 ratio of Representatives to Population.

Today the ratio is 1:700,000 since the Progressives capped the House at 435.

That means we would have over 12,000 Representatives in the House today. No party could reasonably control such a number, and those Representatives would also be subject to their local populations, unlike today.

Instead of Two major parties, you would have Two or Three major "classifications," such as Federalist, Libertarian or Statist, and then you would have each of these three major "classifications" divided into many different factions and subgroups. This result is GUARANTEED, because there is simply not enough time in a day, month or even a year for a single party to manage and intimidate 4000-6000 people.

Not to mention this makes the whole "buying the politician" thing much less efficient, since they would only be 1 among 12,000.

Federalist 10:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

Then what I said agrees with Federalist 10.
We haven't reached the right "Limit" because we are all subject to the Cabals of a Few.

435 Reps is too easy for the "cabals of a few" to control.

So thank you for reinforcing my argument.

Ah! You make a good point, and propose a solution to our current struggles under an oligarchy which I had not considered. Well done.

12,000 though? Still too much.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

It's ironic that a guy like 2nd Amendment blathers on and on about states rights then chooses a constitutional amendment for his username.

They love the power of the big central government when it suits them.

Can you explain where I have advocated for Big Gov?

You sound like you want 12,000 Representatives. That's big government.

Can you imagine 12,000 Congressman spending money to bring home the bacon to get re-elected? Astronomical spending.

We would also adopt the Benjamin Franklin Amendment, no salary or benefits. Only a very small voucher to cover travel expenses from their home state to Washington DC a few times a year.

Also, move to Gold and Silver Coin, no fractional reserve banking, and that spending problem goes away.

Fiat Currency is the Enabler of Big Government, not the number of Representatives.

You're compounding the problem with things that are utterly separate from the issue at hand.

 

[g5000]

Can you explain where I have advocated for Big Gov?

You sound like you want 12,000 Representatives. That's big government.

Can you imagine 12,000 Congressman spending money to bring home the bacon to get re-elected? Astronomical spending.

We would also adopt the Benjamin Franklin Amendment, no salary or benefits. Only a very small voucher to cover travel expenses from their home state to Washington DC a few times a year.

Then we would only have wealthy people running for office as they would be the only ones who could afford no pay.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is an American lawyer, author, conservative

commentator, and the host of American syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show. Levin worked

in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General

Edwin Meese. Mark Levin - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia

Meese became Attorney General in February 1985, holding this office until August, 1988, when

he resigned due to his role in the Wedtech scandal.

Edwin Meese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the final years of Reagan's second term, Wedtech's crimes had become too numerous to hide

Wedtech scandal - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia


nuf said

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Levin is absolutely correct.

We are not now and we have never been a pure "democracy."

PART of installing a form of checks and balances is the indirect manner in which Senators were to be elected.

It gave more power to the STATES. In a FEDERAL system, that it self serves as a check and as a reminder to the centralized federal government that ITS authority IS limited.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is an American lawyer, author, conservative

commentator, and the host of American syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show. Levin worked

in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General

Edwin Meese. Mark Levin - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia

Meese became Attorney General in February 1985, holding this office until August, 1988, when

he resigned due to his role in the Wedtech scandal.

Edwin Meese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the final years of Reagan's second term, Wedtech's crimes had become too numerous to hide

Wedtech scandal - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia


nuf said

Notice: Dainty actually SAID nothing at all.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Ah! You make a good point, and propose a solution to our current struggles under an oligarchy which I had not considered. Well done.

12,000 though? Still too much.

Perhaps 12,000 would be too much, I think 6,000 would be fine for now.

Rather than establishing rights and freedoms, the first amendment as voted on by the states in the original Bill of Rights proposed a ratio by which to determine the number of people to be represented by each member of the House of Representatives. The original first amendment (not ratified) read:

"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons."

Had the amendment been ratified, the number of members of the House of Representatives could by now be over 6,000, compared to the present 435. As apportioned by the 2000 Census, each member of the House currently represents about 650,000 people.

We might actually have to consider a drastic alternative.

For instance, suppose this desired "Limit" was too small to prevent Cabals, but also too large to communicate in real time.

We would have to cleave the Union into multiple federations, instead of a single federation, and wave goodbye to each other. Then we could have a smaller number of total Representatives per federation.

It's possible that there is a hard limit on the Number of Representatives per Republic, and a hard limit on the RATIO of Number of Reps per Person, meaning that our Form of Government actually has a HARD LIMIT on how many individuals it can effectively support.

So for instance, let's say that a Republic cannot fucntion with more than 1000 Representatives, but a Republic also cannot function iwht more than one Representative per 50,000 people, then the limit of people in this Republic is a hard number of 1000*50,000 = 50,000,000 or 50 million.

 

[g5000]

Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is an American lawyer, author, conservative

commentator, and the host of American syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show. Levin worked

in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General

Edwin Meese. Mark Levin - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia

Meese became Attorney General in February 1985, holding this office until August, 1988, when

he resigned due to his role in the Wedtech scandal.

Edwin Meese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the final years of Reagan's second term, Wedtech's crimes had become too numerous to hide

Wedtech scandal - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia


nuf said

Guilty by association fallacy. 'Nuff said. Meese was a lobbyist for Wedtech before he was AG and before Levin was his chief of staff.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

It's ironic that a guy like 2nd Amendment blathers on and on about states rights then chooses a constitutional amendment for his username.

They love the power of the big central government when it suits them.

[MENTION=18701]NYcarbineer[/MENTION]
And it's even more ironic that tools like [MENTION=42689]The2ndAmendment[/MENTION] take their marching orders from men so close to major criminal activity within the government while serving the people...

The2ndAmendment...yeah right...

Mark Reed Levin (born September 21, 1957) is an American lawyer, author, conservative

commentator, and the host of American syndicated radio show The Mark Levin Show. Levin worked

in the administration of President Ronald Reagan and was a chief of staff for Attorney General

Edwin Meese. Mark Levin - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia

Meese became Attorney General in February 1985, holding this office until August, 1988, when

he resigned due to his role in the Wedtech scandal.

Edwin Meese - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

By the final years of Reagan's second term, Wedtech's crimes had become too numerous to hide

Wedtech scandal - Wikipedia, the free

encyclopedia