Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[IlarMeilyr]

DAINTY IS TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING.

Or so it might appear.

 

[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

Guilty by association fallacy. 'Nuff said. Meese was a lobbyist for Wedtech before he was AG and before Levin worked for him.

The association is Chief of Staff to a man who resigned in disgrace because of corruption in government contracts?


yeah baby, oh yeah

 

[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

Guilty by association fallacy. 'Nuff said. Meese was a lobbyist for Wedtech before he was AG and before Levin worked for him.

The association is Chief of Staff to a man who resigned in disgrace because of corruption in government contracts?


yeah baby, oh yeah

Dainty is TRYING to say something. But he is retarded. So it's hard to say.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Levin states the obvious and the crown roars? Jesus, it's like a cult around here lately. Who gets to divine the wisdom in Levin's stools?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

Wrong, the system was intended so that men would continue their day trades while being in office.

A carpenter could still do his trade and be a Representative. That's how it was for many decades before Congressmen were paid decent salaries and had no benefits. You were a PUBLIC SERVANT not a CAREER PUBLIC MASTER.

 

[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.

Levin states the obvious and the crown roars? Jesus, it's like a cult around here lately. Who gets to divine the wisdom in Levin's stools?

If it were obvious, you douche bag liar, it would be the way things were.

But it's not.

So, you go read poops in the public restrooms you habitually stalk.

The rest of us will continue to discuss the suggestions of people like Mark Levin, vastly superior to you in every way.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

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?

Not at all. The 17th should stay as is.
The answer is term limits.
No one should hold elected office for such long periods of time. I don't care on which side of the aisle they reside. The time to end the idea of a career politician is NOW.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

Levin states the obvious and the crown roars? Jesus, it's like a cult around here lately. Who gets to divine the wisdom in Levin's stools?

If it were obvious, you douche bag liar, it would be the way things were.

But it's not.

So, you go read poops in the public restrooms you habitually stalk.

The rest of us will continue to discuss the suggestions of people like Mark Levin, vastly superior to you in every way.

Hey, what was that foot tapping thing you do in public restrooms about? Are you running for a GOP Senate seat?

Obvious? Of course "and to the republic for which it stands..." every kid knows it

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Levin states the obvious and the crown roars? Jesus, it's like a cult around here lately. Who gets to divine the wisdom in Levin's stools?

If it were obvious, you douche bag liar, it would be the way things were.

But it's not.

So, you go read poops in the public restrooms you habitually stalk.

The rest of us will continue to discuss the suggestions of people like Mark Levin, vastly superior to you in every way.

Hey, what was that foot tapping thing you do in public restrooms about? Are you running for a GOP Senate seat?

Zzzzz.

Even your best effort put-down attempts suck ass (like you).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Mark Levin, the replacement for Rush and Billbo, and Hannity? Will people like Liability/Ilar ever learn?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Here is my proposal to end this once and for all.
Term limits.
1. US House Members....No US House member shall serve more than 6 consecutive terms. Once the Member's sixth term is completed, he or she must wait for two terms to pass(four years) before entering their name as a candidate for ANY US House District. This includes all 50 states.
2. US Senators...No member of the US Senate Shall serve more than TWO consecutive terms. Once the Member has completed his or her second consecutive term, he or she Shall NOT enter his or her name as a candidate for ANY Senate seat. This includes ALL 50 states.
3. The salary for US House Members and US Senators Shall be decreased by 50%.
4. Former members of the US House and US Senate will NOT be eligible for ANY federal pension until they have served a minimum of 18 years in office.
5. Upon leaving the House or Senate, all federal benefits shall cease 12 months to the day of the House Member's or Senator's last day of service.

 

[freedombecki]

Mark Levin, the replacement for Rush and Billbo, and Hannity? Will people like Liability/Ilar ever learn?

So Levin scares the Freudian Stage I insults outta ya, hm?

​

​

​

 

[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?

Not at all. The 17th should stay as is.
The answer is term limits.
No one should hold elected office for such long periods of time. I don't care on which side of the aisle they reside. The time to end the idea of a career politician is NOW.

The 1994 Republican revolutionaries promised term limits in their contract with America. They were in power for 12 years, and did nothing in that regard.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Not at all. The 17th should stay as is.
The answer is term limits.
No one should hold elected office for such long periods of time. I don't care on which side of the aisle they reside. The time to end the idea of a career politician is NOW.

The 1994 Republican revolutionaries promised term limits in their contract with America. They were in power for 12 years, and did nothing in that regard.

Ignorance is your best attribute. Senate rejects term limits in 24-75 vote - The Hill's Floor Action

In the elections of 1994, part of the Republican platform was to pass legislation setting term limits in Congress. After winning the majority, a Republican congressman brought a constitutional amendment to the House floor that proposed limiting members of the Senate to two six-year terms and members of the House to six two-year terms.[24] However, this rate of rotation was so slow (the life-tenured Supreme Court averages in the vicinity of twelve years) that the congressional version of term-limits garnered little support among the populist backers of term limits, including U.S. Term Limits, the largest private organization pushing for Congressional term limits.[25][citation needed] The bill got only a bare majority (227–204), falling short of the two-thirds majority (290) needed for constitutional amendments.[26] Three other term limit amendment bills failed to get more than 200 votes.[27]

Your idea of "nothing" and mine are in two completely different realms.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

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.

I notice that here we are 20 pages later and you have STILL ignored the counter question after I answered this concept (as many others here have as well) so I’ll give you another chance:

Do you think that we should stop appointing the SCOTUS and start directly voting for them? After all, you are the one that is stating you are losing your rights when you are not able to vote for a member in government. Since you seem to think that democratic elections superior to appointment – the SCOTUS should also be voted for, right?

Do you really think that we would be better off under that concept?

 

[FA_Q2]

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

?
What the hell are you talking about? In order to actually be taken serious you require him to call for the end of woman’s suffrage….

I am guessing that you meant another amendment…

 

[g5000]

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

Women need to stay in the kitchen where they belong!

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I find this line of thought rather interesting. I think that getting so damn many people to agree on anything would be a monumental task but in all honesty, that would be better.

I kind of like the idea that our representatives in the house would be close enough to the people that they only covered the tens of thousands rather than hundreds that it is now. That means your actual vote would have REAL impact as it does in local elections. I wonder if people would pay attention though. Most people have no clue who is running in local elections and that makes for a lot of politicians that don’t really need to campaign at all. They are just slid in with the party.

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.

That many politicians would essentially mean an end to ‘bringing home the bacon’ as there would simply be no possible way for a single or even a hundred politicians to convince the other 11 thousand that a bad bill was worth it because of that factory their constituents need. Right now that is exactly what happens. I chalk that up as a GOOD thing.

Further, big government is not an expression of the number of politicians but rather an expression of governmental power. A dictator is the ‘biggest’ form of government that I can think of yet it centers around only a single person. The pay is rather meaningless as well. If you really think about it, a politician could get away with a scant 100K a year – a damn good pay for the job IMHO – and even with 12,000 you are still only looking at an annual salary of 1.2B. Is that a hell of a lot of cash. Yes it is but we are running a current annual expenditure of over 3.5T we are looking at a scat 0.3% of the budget. I, for one, would have no problem paying a small tax to cover a salary for a representative that actually represented me; something that I don’t think we have anymore. And that is not considering what 2nd stated in not giving them a salary or reducing the numbers somewhat.

I don’t think that no pay is a good idea though, just less pay. It could be considered a part time job. There is also the consideration that the reps don’t actually NEED to go to Washington. I would actually think that it would be better for them to stay right where they are, with the voters that put them there, and do the communication and voting digitally. We have the technology and the ability – I fail to see why we are not doing this type o0f thing now.

 

[g5000]

You can't have a home in your district and a place to live in Washington DC on $100,000.

 

[FA_Q2]

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 function with more than 1000 Representatives, but a Republic also cannot function with 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.

I actually don’t think that is necessary though as long as the power is properly distributed. IOW, there would be no hard limit as long as the power blocks shrank with the next step up. The problem that we have now is that the small cabal that ‘represents’ us in congress has a LOT of power over our daily lives. If that power were not so extreme, the number of representative to the number of people would be less of a concern. I think that was the original intent within the government anyway where the federal government would exercise limited governance and the states grater governance and the municipalities grater governance and so on. With that in mind, you could conceivable allow for a greater number of people per rep because that rep would be exercising a lesser amount of control over each individual.