Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Do you want indirect elections of your governor? Of your house member? Of your mayor?

Get it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

The Republicans took the Senate in 2002.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

I know that the thread is a lot of posts but if you had read it you would realize that term limits have nothing to do with what we are discussing. The point of repealing the 17 would be to return to a system where the states themselves retained some of their rights (and by extension some of their sovereignty). Term limits have nothing to do with that concept.

Personally, I think that term limits are a misnomer anyway. In reality, all they do is ensure that another empty suit that has been bought off and authorized by the political party in question replaces the last piece of worthless ‘representation’ that held the seat before him/her. I don’t see any real impacts that term limits bring to the table. Carrier politicians are not the problem or the source of corruption – governmental powers that should not exist and a party structure that ensures no one that bucks the system gets into office is.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

Again this is also possible, we have no historical or empirical data to draw our conclusions from that either supports or discredits our proposals; however, we do have plenty of evidence and data that proves that current model fails.

Without a doubt, we'll have to re-charter the entire Constitution again and fix all of it's Statist failures.

Thomas Jefferson pointed out the largest failure of all in the Constitution:

Allowing the government to borrow money.

-----------------

Now just imagine, if the Government could never borrow money, and all money operating on Gold and Silver, how would the Progressives pay for all their shit without taxing us all at 100%? Even at 100% it wouldn't' be enough.

I don't think people would like being taxed at 100%; therefore no one would ever vote for Progressives.

--------------------------------------------
Counterfeit and fake paper/digital money is the only way Progressives can fund themselves.

And hence why they created the Federal Reserve and the Income tax, and in the same year, they created the 17th Amendment, because the previous two attempts, the First and Second Banks of the United States, were defeated by the Senate.

So the banking cabals studies their previous failures, and decided they would have to compromise the Senate, so it could no longer threaten the re-charter of the Third Bank of the United States (federal reserve).\\

The IRS, 16th amendment, Federal Reserve and the 17th Amendment are all creatures from Jekyell Island.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Why does it give more power to the States? How is letting the People of the state directly pick who they want for their Senators taking power away from the state?

How can the State and the People be two different entities?

 

[FA_Q2]

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

I know, right. It is obvious that people living over 200 years ago know nothing about today and their insights border on useless. I mean, what the fuck does Isaac Newton know anyway. We should just disregard anything that he had to say; that was over 400 years ago. The likes of Sun Tzu should really be taken out of study in military academies. That man understood NOTHING about modern warfare as he was dealing with armies that still used swards. Obviously, his knowledge and insight is worthless in today’s world. Adam smith is another one of those relics of the past that have no knowledge worth studying.

Perhaps you should really take a good look at reality and understand that there is a lot about past people that you can learn from and use today. To believe that you are so grates that the minds of yesteryear are worthless is arrogant beyond reason.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

And here we are again with the lefts one argument that they have placed all over this thread. It interests me that the ONLY people that claim founder worship or ever state that the founders were perfect/beyond reproach/got everything right or that the original constitution is what we should all be adhering to are people from the left. In order to argue you seem to need to outright lie about the positions of those that you are arguing against.

Here is a little hint for you, no one here thinks that the constitution or the founders was ever perfect. That argument is the sole property of the demonizations of the left. Because you don’t seem to be able to face the real arguments placed here, you are mischaracterizing ours. I would tell you to stop but I know that you are not capable of that. It is the true refuge of those that do not have any real points to make or logical arguments to fall back on. When you have nothing, lie about what the other side is trying to accomplish.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not to rain too much on this 500 post idle fantasy,

but does anyone here need to be reminded that the 17th will never be repealed, that senate election will never get put back the way they were?

Two simple dealbreaking reasons:

1. You have slim and none chance of getting 2/3rds of Congress to propose it.

2. Even if 1. occurred, then 38 state legislatures have to ratify it, which means that 38 state legislatures have to vote to take the People's right to vote for their senators

AND GIVE IT TO THEMSELVES!!

Show us the state politicians who want to sell that idea to the voters!!

lol

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

Why does it give more power to the States? How is letting the People of the state directly pick who they want for their Senators taking power away from the state?

How can the State and the People be two different entities?

The State is a Fiction, it's a legal entity that exists on paper. It's power is derived from the Consent and Fiat (confidence) of the People, when people cease to believe in it, it dissolves.

The People are real life individuals, that exist in reality. Whether or not someone or even an entire group believes in the exist of a particular person, that person will exist regardless of their beliefs.

However, this subject is way over your head. We'd have to back to Cicero and Plato and Aristotle.

 

[FA_Q2]

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?

Do you want indirect elections of your governor? Of your house member? Of your mayor?

Get it?

You didn’t answer the question. You are the one that is demanding that all government representatives need to be directly elected. I am the one that is saying some should be directly elected and others should be elected by other means to uphold other checks and balances.

AGAIN, should we directly elect the SCOTUS members.

 

[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.

And here we are again with the lefts one argument that they have placed all over this thread. It interests me that the ONLY people that claim founder worship or ever state that the founders were perfect/beyond reproach/got everything right or that the original constitution is what we should all be adhering to are people from the left. In order to argue you seem to need to outright lie about the positions of those that you are arguing against.

Here is a little hint for you, no one here thinks that the constitution or the founders was ever perfect. That argument is the sole property of the demonizations of the left. Because you don’t seem to be able to face the real arguments placed here, you are mischaracterizing ours. I would tell you to stop but I know that you are not capable of that. It is the true refuge of those that do not have any real points to make or logical arguments to fall back on. When you have nothing, lie about what the other side is trying to accomplish.

lol you contradicted yourself in 2 consecutive posts.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Not to rain too much on this 500 post idle fantasy,

but does anyone here need to be reminded that the 17th will never be repealed, that senate election will never get put back the way they were?

Two simple dealbreaking reasons:

1. You have slim and none chance of getting 2/3rds of Congress to propose it.

2. Even if 1. occurred, then 38 state legislatures have to ratify it, which means that 38 state legislatures have to vote to take the People's right to vote for their senators

AND GIVE IT TO THEMSELVES!!

Show us the state politicians who want to sell that idea to the voters!!

lol

It won't be too long before the federal government becomes so tyrannical and unresponsive to the people, that the states will use their Article V powers to bypass them and call for a Constitution themselves, and ratify it without Congress's approval.

What will you Progressives do when the Citizens bypass your Big Gov and dissolve it?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

See that part in bold text? It was an emergency measure intended for this very nightmare scenario, when the Federal Government became too large and tyrannical. The States could simply dissolve it, regardless of Big Gov's input.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

That would not be necessary. Read my last statement, I don’t think that congressmen should even be going to Washington in the first place. Even if they need to go there, they certainly do not need to maintain a residence.

Worst case scenario, put a damn bedroom in the offices, what do they need a residence there for if they are not planning on actually living in DC.

 

[FA_Q2]

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

And here we are again with the lefts one argument that they have placed all over this thread. It interests me that the ONLY people that claim founder worship or ever state that the founders were perfect/beyond reproach/got everything right or that the original constitution is what we should all be adhering to are people from the left. In order to argue you seem to need to outright lie about the positions of those that you are arguing against.

Here is a little hint for you, no one here thinks that the constitution or the founders was ever perfect. That argument is the sole property of the demonizations of the left. Because you don’t seem to be able to face the real arguments placed here, you are mischaracterizing ours. I would tell you to stop but I know that you are not capable of that. It is the true refuge of those that do not have any real points to make or logical arguments to fall back on. When you have nothing, lie about what the other side is trying to accomplish.

lol you contradicted yourself in 2 consecutive posts.

I notice that you did not point that out because you know that it requires you to twist words I said into something that I did not claim.

I have not contradicted myself anywhere on this thread, try again.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Here is a little hint for you, no one here thinks that the constitution or the founders was ever perfect. That argument is the sole property of the demonizations of the left. Because you don’t seem to be able to face the real arguments placed here, you are mischaracterizing ours. I would tell you to stop but I know that you are not capable of that. It is the true refuge of those that do not have any real points to make or logical arguments to fall back on. When you have nothing, lie about what the other side is trying to accomplish.

lol you contradicted yourself in 2 consecutive posts.

Can you even define what a "contradiction" is?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

I know, right. It is obvious that people living over 200 years ago know nothing about today and their insights border on useless. I mean, what the fuck does Isaac Newton know anyway. We should just disregard anything that he had to say; that was over 400 years ago. The likes of Sun Tzu should really be taken out of study in military academies. That man understood NOTHING about modern warfare as he was dealing with armies that still used swards. Obviously, his knowledge and insight is worthless in today’s world. Adam smith is another one of those relics of the past that have no knowledge worth studying.

Perhaps you should really take a good look at reality and understand that there is a lot about past people that you can learn from and use today. To believe that you are so grates that the minds of yesteryear are worthless is arrogant beyond reason.

The Framers did not speak with a single voice, nor were they of a single mind; and their perception of the Republic changed over time.

The fundamental themes of liberty expressed by the Framers will always inspire and have value, but will nonetheless be tempered in the context of the current day and the realities of this modern era.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The Framers did not speak with a single voice, nor were they of a single mind; and their perception of the Republic changed over time.

The fundamental themes of liberty expressed by the Framers will always inspire and have value, but will nonetheless be tempered in the context of the current day and the realities of this modern era.

I'm still waiting for your proof that Martin Luther King was a Communist. Do I need to recall that thread?

 

[eagle1462010]

Not to rain too much on this 500 post idle fantasy,

but does anyone here need to be reminded that the 17th will never be repealed, that senate election will never get put back the way they were?

Two simple dealbreaking reasons:

1. You have slim and none chance of getting 2/3rds of Congress to propose it.

2. Even if 1. occurred, then 38 state legislatures have to ratify it, which means that 38 state legislatures have to vote to take the People's right to vote for their senators

AND GIVE IT TO THEMSELVES!!

Show us the state politicians who want to sell that idea to the voters!!

lol

It won't be too long before the federal government becomes so tyrannical and unresponsive to the people, that the states will use their Article V powers to bypass them and call for a Constitution themselves, and ratify it without Congress's approval.

What will you Progressives do when the Citizens bypass your Big Gov and dissolve it?

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

See that part in bold text? It was an emergency measure intended for this very nightmare scenario, when the Federal Government became too large and tyrannical. The States could simply dissolve it, regardless of Big Gov's input.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw]I Am America - Krista Branch - YouTube[/ame]

It's already time to do this. Enough of the current BS.........................

 

[jgarden]

Steny Hoyer: House Democrats won majority of 2012 popular vote
Tuesday, February 12th, 2013

Republicans control the U.S. House of Representatives by 33 seats, an advantage Speaker John Boehner once suggested gives them a mandate to block tax increases.

Some House Democrats have countered this idea with their own talking point: GOP members may control more seats, but they did not win the popular vote in 2012.

"House GOP Won 49 Percent of Votes, 54 Percent of Seats."

By Cook’s calculations, House Democrats out-earned their Republican counterparts by 1.17 million votes. Read another way, Democrats won 50.59 percent of the two-party vote. Still, they won just 46.21 percent of seats, leaving the Republicans with 234 seats and Democrats with 201.

It was the second time in 70 years that a party won the majority of the vote but didn’t win a majority of the House seats, according to the analysis.

PolitiFact | Steny Hoyer: House Democrats won majority of 2012 popular vote

Such discrepancies just don't happen by chance - they're the result of a concerted effort by Republicans at the state level in 2010 to "gerrymander" the boundaries of their congressional districts to negate the Democratic popular vote.

Michigan: 2012 House of Representatives
*************************************
Democratic vote 2,327,985 Democratic seats 5
Republican vote 2,086,804 Republican seats 9

North Carolina: 2012 House of Representatives
***************************************
Democratic vote 2,218,357 Democratic seats 4
Republican vote 2,137,167 Republican seats 9

Pennsylvania: 2012 House of Representatives
***************************************
Democratic vote 2,793,538 Democratic seats 5
Republican vote 2,710,070 Republican seats 13

Wisconsin: 2012 House of Representatives
***************************************
Democratic vote 1,445,015 Democratic seats 3
Republican vote 1,401,995 Republican seats 5

Senate seats , however, are based on boundaries that can be gerrymandered but the state-wide popular vote, so Republicans are forced to resort to different strategies to reduce or negate the Democratic popular vote - ie. voter ID, reducing early voting period, repealing 17th Amendment

http://projects.propublica.org/graphics/seats-vs-votes

 

[Intense]

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

Did he say that before or after the invention of the flush toilet? You realize that a Federal Republic is a Hybrid Democracy, right? My impression of you was that you were above being duped by the angry mob. Are you actually advocating for mob rule? Here is a thought, which ever way we are ruled, let's limit the powers, of that rule and as a bonus, limit the threat of Tyranny.