Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[velvtacheeze]

If states are so harmed by the Amendment....then why did they vote for the amendment?

The Americans who lived in the country prior to the 17th amendment clearly didn't like it enough to go through the long process of passing the amendment.

I'll take their word over how bad it must have been over yours or that gasbag Levin.

If drinking is so damaging to your health, why are you a heavy drinker?

Answer: because people often make mistakes.

Waking up and recognizing a mistake can often lead to a profound desire to undo it.

It is not a valid or reasonable or intelligent answer to an effort to correct some mistake to say, "if it's so bad, why did we do it in the first place?"

Because we made a mistake.

It is time to correct the mistake.

The mistake was corrected by the 17th amendment.

But go ahead and demand that the GOP make this a priority. By all means. As if liberals didn't already have enough unpopular conservative ideas and policy proposals to attack the GOP over, you might as well add one more, idiots.

 

[Toro]

. . . .

Popular elections take power away from the State and award it directly to the People, making it more of a risk for mob-ocracy.

But if the People from divergent communities within a state elect their state legislators and they (the State's legislators) collectively install the STATE's representatives to the U.S. Senate, then it becomes the overall STATE government that has power over the Senators.

The people of the State is not synonymous with the People of that State BECAUSE of the lack of direct elections.

It is another check and balance. It is another form of filtering direct democracy.

. . . .

That you consider democracy an evil is what makes you a conservative, and what also puts you in a very tiny minority, thank you baby jesus.

What a moronic thing you just said. I'm not surprised, really.

Listen up: I do not consider democracy an evil. As a conservative, I endorse democracy, unlike you.

Like the Founders and the Framers and lots of other intelligent folks, however, I recognize that an unconstrained 'democracy" harbors within it the seeds of some serious problems.

Are you TRULY so ignorant that you NEVER heard of the concept of a "tyranny of the majority?"

Are you such a dilettante devotee of democracy that you favor unconstrained "democracy" over checks and balances that serve to safeguard AGAINST a tyranny of a majority?

Thank the baby Jesus indeed that far wiser people than you PREVAILED at the birth of our Republic.

So what's your problem with it, exactly?

I'm a Canadian. (Just like you!) Canada has far less democracy than America. And Canadian governments appoint their Senators. That hasn't stopped the government from expanding social programs and government spending.

 

[velvtacheeze]

If states are so harmed by the Amendment....then why did they vote for the amendment?

The Americans who lived in the country prior to the 17th amendment clearly didn't like it enough to go through the long process of passing the amendment.

I'll take their word over how bad it must have been over yours or that gasbag Levin.

If drinking is so damaging to your health, why are you a heavy drinker?

Answer: because people often make mistakes.

Waking up and recognizing a mistake can often lead to a profound desire to undo it.

It is not a valid or reasonable or intelligent answer to an effort to correct some mistake to say, "if it's so bad, why did we do it in the first place?"

Because we made a mistake.

It is time to correct the mistake.

Allowing the people to select their own representatives is a mistake?

I hope Republicans make this part of their platform

Conservatives know better than Americans who lived in the America they yearn for. Americans who lived in America prior to the 17th amendment voted to change it, Americans who lived in America prior to Social Security voted to change it, Americans who lived in America prior to Medicaid voted to change it, Conservatives think that they were all wrong, and made mistakes. No wonder Romney lost.

 

[AmazonTania]

That you consider democracy an evil is what makes you a conservative, and what also puts you in a very tiny minority, thank you baby jesus.

What a moronic thing you just said. I'm not surprised, really.

Listen up: I do not consider democracy an evil. As a conservative, I endorse democracy, unlike you.

Like the Founders and the Framers and lots of other intelligent folks, however, I recognize that an unconstrained 'democracy" harbors within it the seeds of some serious problems.

Are you TRULY so ignorant that you NEVER heard of the concept of a "tyranny of the majority?"

Are you such a dilettante devotee of democracy that you favor unconstrained "democracy" over checks and balances that serve to safeguard AGAINST a tyranny of a majority?

Thank the baby Jesus indeed that far wiser people than you PREVAILED at the birth of our Republic.

So what's your problem with it, exactly?

I'm a Canadian. (Just like you!) Canada has far less democracy than America. And Canadian governments appoint their Senators. That hasn't stopped the government from expanding social programs and government spending.

I know Canadians enjoy less rights than Americans. Not to sure about having less democracy.

I also thought you were American. *Confused*

 

[Toro]

I'm also not sure why voting for Senators is "unconstrained democracy." Here in Florida, our ballot in the last election was four pages long, with several constitutional amendments that dealt with complex issues. If there is "unconstrained democracy," it seems to me that voting on a budgetary funding formula and the composition of university regents is a better example of "unconstrained democracy" than voting once every six years for a Senator.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If states are so harmed by the Amendment....then why did they vote for the amendment?

The Americans who lived in the country prior to the 17th amendment clearly didn't like it enough to go through the long process of passing the amendment.

I'll take their word over how bad it must have been over yours or that gasbag Levin.

If drinking is so damaging to your health, why are you a heavy drinker?

Answer: because people often make mistakes.

Waking up and recognizing a mistake can often lead to a profound desire to undo it.

It is not a valid or reasonable or intelligent answer to an effort to correct some mistake to say, "if it's so bad, why did we do it in the first place?"

Because we made a mistake.

It is time to correct the mistake.

Allowing the people to select their own representatives is a mistake?

I hope Republicans make this part of their platform

Leftwhiner:

Try to be honest when you "argue." You might have something to offer.

The reason we established a bicameral legislative body in the first place was to have the HOUSE serve more directly to represent the people. The People thus DO get to select their own representatives. So much for your disingenuous and false-premise "argument."

The SENATE, by contrast, was DESIGNED to be a bit less direct. That was done FOR an actual legitimate REASON.

And yes, it has proved to BE a mistake to make the election of Senators a direct election process. We tampered with the original Constitutional design in a manner that did prove to cause injury to the Republic.

Clearly, it is not always a mistake to fine tune the mechanisms crafted by the Founders and the Framers. They were wise enough to make provision for such things, in fact. BUT, still, sometimes when we engage in our efforts to fine tune the Constitutional framework, we DO make mistakes. For example: The income tax. A cluster-fuck of a mistake. Direct elections of U.S. Senators. A mistake.

Prohibition? A mistake. Hey. How about that? We corrected that one.

As to your last line, you are such a partisan (in a typically and sadly hack way) that you persist in viewing this discussion as a Democrat vs Republican proposition. I am not a Republican, so I certainly do not share your outlook. You are wrong. It is not a discussion about political party -- even though I acknowledge that some ramifications do impact on political party matters. But what Levin has identified and what this discussion is actually ABOUT goes far beyond party politics.

 

[AmazonTania]

If drinking is so damaging to your health, why are you a heavy drinker?

Answer: because people often make mistakes.

Waking up and recognizing a mistake can often lead to a profound desire to undo it.

It is not a valid or reasonable or intelligent answer to an effort to correct some mistake to say, "if it's so bad, why did we do it in the first place?"

Because we made a mistake.

It is time to correct the mistake.

Allowing the people to select their own representatives is a mistake?

I hope Republicans make this part of their platform

Conservatives know better than Americans who lived in the America they yearn for. Americans who lived in America prior to the 17th amendment voted to change it, Americans who lived in America prior to Social Security voted to change it, Americans who lived in America prior to Medicaid voted to change it, Conservatives think that they were all wrong, and made mistakes. No wonder Romney lost.

You would have a difficult time finding someone who lived in America prior to the creation of Social Security being alive today. Probably very rare. Even if you did find this person, this person would need to stay alive at least 12 more years to receive 100% of what was paid into it.

 

[Toro]

I know Canadians enjoy less rights than Americans. Not to sure about having less democracy.

Canadians vote less and on fewer things.

It also depends on how one defines "rights." The Canadian left says Canadians have a right to healthcare. I disagree, but under that framework, Americans have less rights.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I know Canadians enjoy less rights than Americans. Not to sure about having less democracy.

Canadians vote less and on fewer things.

It also depends on how one defines "rights." The Canadian left says Canadians have a right to healthcare. I disagree, but under that framework, Americans have less rights.

"Fewer."

And no.

There was a time when Canucks would cross over their southern border to GET health care in the USA.

There is probably no such thing as a panacea when it comes to providing health care to the people in a large nation.

But whatever is wrong with the way it gets delivered, one thing has become clearer and clearer, even to the idiot incumbent in the Oval office:

Obamacare is NOT a viable option.

 

[AmazonTania]

I know Canadians enjoy less rights than Americans. Not to sure about having less democracy.

Canadians vote less and on fewer things.

It also depends on how one defines "rights." The Canadian left says Canadians have a right to healthcare. I disagree, but under that framework, Americans have less rights.

Hm, somehow I believe it when people say that Canadians are less involved in their electoral process.

Under the Canadian Framework, one has the right to the security of persons, which includes Health Care. As far as I know, Canadians do not have a right to property in their Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under this Framework, Americans seem to enjoy more rights.

 

[FA_Q2]

Clearly you have not read MLK's Letter in Birm Jail.

He clearly says his opposition to segregation and other forms of rampant and blatant racism was based on God's law, not Man's law.

But of course, to admit that, a Libtard would have to accept God as a legitimate entity, instead of something to deride and mock.

That is the beauty of natural rights though – you don’t.

Natural rights are no less intrinsic or important if there is a God or if they are simply intrinsic in the way we evolved.

 

[FA_Q2]

Because they would not tell me your opinion.

1. Are you opposed to direct democracy?
2. If so, are you opposed to referendum, such as California's propositions?
3. Are you for Senators being appointed instead of elected?
4. If Senators and Judges are both unelected, is it right for them to then have power over our laws?
Do you have any problem with unelected politicians running the country?

Why should anyone answer your questions when you are being so damn disengenious. You have painted others as though they have to be all for or all against and when you can no longer run from the point that was given to you:

California Proposition 8 = Direct Democracy (the concept hated by Mark Levin and you people)

Appeals Courts that ruled against Prop 8 = Judges appointed/approved by elected officials (similar to how Levin, and you people - you know who you people are - want the Senate to be appointed)

So, who should have the final say?

The sensibly appointed judges, or the Mob?

Perhaps you should direct that vapid quote. I have ben engaging you for several pages where you have insistently demanded that you want to directly vote for your reps except that you won’t say in the case of judges and now you are pointing out yet another case where you are a complete hypocrite in opposition of a democratically passed law.

Fortunately I don’t have such reservations as I am not inconsistent here. I fully support the thrashing of a law that violates rights by the court, that’s what they are APPOINTED to do (not voted in consequently).

As I explained to you, one does not have to support EVERYONE being elected in order to support Senators being elected,

any more than one has to support everyone being appointed in order to support Senators being appointed.

My questions above are directed to those who are opposed to direct democracy.

Basically admitting that it is NOT an all or nothing proposition. Essentially, your question is rather meaningless now as it has been made clear for you that the supporters of this support DIRECT election of some representatives and state election or appointment other representatives. The reasons for this have also been explained, reasons that you seem unable to address.

Oh, brother - you’ve never been ‘in power,’ particularly since there’s no such thing as a ‘constitutionalist.’

Indeed, the Constitution and Republic were established by the Framers to safeguard against many of the policies advocated today by ‘libertarians and constitutionalists.’

Like?

Like the kind of states rights that would allow, for example, a state to legally institute segregation.

WTF? No one here anywhere has supported segregation sio I’ll have to ask again, what fucking policies did the framers guard against that ‘libertarians and constitutionalists’ are putting forth?

To show even further the ignorance of your statement: the framers didn’t put ANY protections in for segregation because they actually supported the most grievous segregation of all: slavery.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

This is not a theological discussion.

Whether or not "rights" come from God or from "natural rights" or whatever, they exist to the extent WE can now agree upon them and agree to give them fore and effect.

A very logical argument can be made in FAVOR of equal rights and equal protections under the law FOR such rights. If -- on the basis of race or some similar ground -- we try to DENY any person or group the benefit of a "right" on which we agree, then we would logically have to agree that WE should be denied that same "right." To protect against OUR loss of such "right" we are logically obligated to protect that right for all -- at least unless and until the right if forfeited on some valid basis on a case by case basis.

However, this thread's discussion started off with the list of proposed Amendments suggested by Mark Levin and seeks to FOCUS on them one at a time, starting with the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

The discussion seems to be wandering off track here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

. . . .

Popular elections take power away from the State and award it directly to the People, making it more of a risk for mob-ocracy.

But if the People from divergent communities within a state elect their state legislators and they (the State's legislators) collectively install the STATE's representatives to the U.S. Senate, then it becomes the overall STATE government that has power over the Senators.

The people of the State is not synonymous with the People of that State BECAUSE of the lack of direct elections.

It is another check and balance. It is another form of filtering direct democracy.

. . . .

That you consider democracy an evil is what makes you a conservative, and what also puts you in a very tiny minority, thank you baby jesus.

What a moronic thing you just said. I'm not surprised, really.

Listen up: I do not consider democracy an evil. As a conservative, I endorse democracy, unlike you.

Like the Founders and the Framers and lots of other intelligent folks, however, I recognize that an unconstrained 'democracy" harbors within it the seeds of some serious problems.

Are you TRULY so ignorant that you NEVER heard of the concept of a "tyranny of the majority?"

Are you such a dilettante devotee of democracy that you favor unconstrained "democracy" over checks and balances that serve to safeguard AGAINST a tyranny of a majority?

Thank the baby Jesus indeed that far wiser people than you PREVAILED at the birth of our Republic.

Democracy creates the checks and balances that the People, through their VOTE, and via MAJORITIES, want.

We only have a Bill of Rights because the MAJORITY wanted it. The rights of minorities that are protected in something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are only in place because a MAJORITY wanted them.

'Tyranny of the majority' is just a catchphrase used by minorities who want a tyranny of their own.

Blathering about 'tyranny of the majority' in order to scare people into abandoning that most basic foundational principle of democratic government to the point where disproportionate minority power is able to cripple the government to the point of making it non-functional is a crime AGAINST democracy.

 

[FA_Q2]

God, are you ever brainwashed

Liberals fought our American Revolution
Liberals led us in WWII

Never seen them run from a fight

What a brainwashing ATTEMPT RW...LIBERALS from WHAT TIMEFRAME?

YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR.

You have no concept of what a liberal is.....

Liberals evolve to meet the challenges of each generation. Liberalism is not frozen in time. A liberal looks at his society, examines what is wrong and tries to make it better

Our founding fathers were liberals, Lincoln was a liberal,FDR was liberal, JFK was a liberal

They believed different things but they were all liberals

You make the entire term liberal pointless. You have defined it in a way that means simply change. I guess we are ALL liberals then, even the conservatives here. Useless.

The reality is that there is a political ideology that has coopted the term liberal. Those that coopted that term do not believe in anything that remotely mirrors the goals of the founders whatsoever. To claim that you and they are in a similar political category is absolutely insane. Nothing that they stood for can be construed to be what you stand for. That is one of the reasons that liberals here are so damn quick to cast disparaging remarks about them every chance they get.

By your definition, I would be a liberal if I supported a complete police state where capital punishment was used by police for traffic violations and the powers of all the government were merged into an executive branch executed by all powerful police forces. That is certainly ‘different’ and covers ‘new’ territory. Do you not understand how worthless the word liberal defined in that manner becomes in a political discussion though?

Allowing the people to select their own representatives is a mistake?

I hope Republicans make this part of their platform

People elect representative still and before the 17th oh grate constructor of straw men. The mistake was obliterating an entire power check on federal government through state representation.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm also not sure why voting for Senators is "unconstrained democracy." Here in Florida, our ballot in the last election was four pages long, with several constitutional amendments that dealt with complex issues. If there is "unconstrained democracy," it seems to me that voting on a budgetary funding formula and the composition of university regents is a better example of "unconstrained democracy" than voting once every six years for a Senator.

Another straw man. NO ONE has claimed that voting for senators is unconstrained democracy.

For the last time, the point is that states no longer exercise another level of checks against the federal government. There is just one check now – the people. There used to be two – the people AND the states. More checks = better.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Like the kind of states rights that would allow, for example, a state to legally institute segregation.

WTF? No one here anywhere has supported segregation sio I’ll have to ask again, what fucking policies did the framers guard against that ‘libertarians and constitutionalists’ are putting forth?

To show even further the ignorance of your statement: the framers didn’t put ANY protections in for segregation because they actually supported the most grievous segregation of all: slavery.[/QUOTE]

No one on this board has ever said that a business should have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, including color, thus having the right to segregate?

Really? You've never seen that?

No one on this board has ever said that the federal government has no business in education? Thus meaning that state segregation of schools was none of the federal govnernment's business?

Really? You've never seen that here?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

That you consider democracy an evil is what makes you a conservative, and what also puts you in a very tiny minority, thank you baby jesus.

What a moronic thing you just said. I'm not surprised, really.

Listen up: I do not consider democracy an evil. As a conservative, I endorse democracy, unlike you.

Like the Founders and the Framers and lots of other intelligent folks, however, I recognize that an unconstrained 'democracy" harbors within it the seeds of some serious problems.

Are you TRULY so ignorant that you NEVER heard of the concept of a "tyranny of the majority?"

Are you such a dilettante devotee of democracy that you favor unconstrained "democracy" over checks and balances that serve to safeguard AGAINST a tyranny of a majority?

Thank the baby Jesus indeed that far wiser people than you PREVAILED at the birth of our Republic.

Democracy creates the checks and balances that the People, through their VOTE, and via MAJORITIES, want.

We only have a Bill of Rights because the MAJORITY wanted it. The rights of minorities that are protected in something like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are only in place because a MAJORITY wanted them.

'Tyranny of the majority' is just a catchphrase used by minorities who want a tyranny of their own.

Blathering about 'tyranny of the majority' in order to scare people into abandoning that most basic foundational principle of democratic government to the point where disproportionate minority power is able to cripple the government to the point of making it non-functional is a crime AGAINST democracy.

You are fully wrong. Such is what we can expect from one with your crippled political ideology.

"Tyranny of the Majority" is FAR more than a catch phrase used by minorities. It was an expression of concern by the folks trying to craft a form of government -- cognizant of the potential for serious damage to those in the minority. It was one reason to CRAFT a series of various checks and balances.

You seem unable of unwilling to accept the historical fact, but that's ok. It doesn't go away just because you decline to see it or admit it. The FACT is: as much as the Founders and the Framers WANTED for the People to be sovereign, they also wanted to install institutional checks and balances to constrain the prospect for mischief inherent in a so-called "pure" democracy. They did not trust the people unreservedly. They did not believe that we should trust either the majority without reservation or the government without reservation.

They were right. You are wrong. While we do hold ultimate political authority, and ought to, we do not have easy access to the reigns of power. It was made (deliberately) difficult. This too is as it should be.

What advocates such as you propose (careless sloppy thinking leads you far astray) would take out those constraints. We would rue the day. We already are.

You and your childish way of thinking would have us remove the circuit breakers. You are a danger to the civil society.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[The mistake was obliterating an entire power check on federal government through state representation.

Senators represent their states now.

btw, since there is no way the American People are by any measure even close to wanting to turn Senatorial elections over to their statehouses,

why can't people like you simply respect that? Or is that just another example of how the 'mob' is too stupid to govern itself?

 

[rightwinger]

If drinking is so damaging to your health, why are you a heavy drinker?

Answer: because people often make mistakes.

Waking up and recognizing a mistake can often lead to a profound desire to undo it.

It is not a valid or reasonable or intelligent answer to an effort to correct some mistake to say, "if it's so bad, why did we do it in the first place?"

Because we made a mistake.

It is time to correct the mistake.

Allowing the people to select their own representatives is a mistake?

I hope Republicans make this part of their platform

Leftwhiner:

Try to be honest when you "argue." You might have something to offer.

The reason we established a bicameral legislative body in the first place was to have the HOUSE serve more directly to represent the people. The People thus DO get to select their own representatives. So much for your disingenuous and false-premise "argument."

The SENATE, by contrast, was DESIGNED to be a bit less direct. That was done FOR an actual legitimate REASON.

And yes, it has proved to BE a mistake to make the election of Senators a direct election process. We tampered with the original Constitutional design in a manner that did prove to cause injury to the Republic.

Clearly, it is not always a mistake to fine tune the mechanisms crafted by the Founders and the Framers. They were wise enough to make provision for such things, in fact. BUT, still, sometimes when we engage in our efforts to fine tune the Constitutional framework, we DO make mistakes. For example: The income tax. A cluster-fuck of a mistake. Direct elections of U.S. Senators. A mistake.

Prohibition? A mistake. Hey. How about that? We corrected that one.

As to your last line, you are such a partisan (in a typically and sadly hack way) that you persist in viewing this discussion as a Democrat vs Republican proposition. I am not a Republican, so I certainly do not share your outlook. You are wrong. It is not a discussion about political party -- even though I acknowledge that some ramifications do impact on political party matters. But what Levin has identified and what this discussion is actually ABOUT goes far beyond party politics.

What can I say? The founding fathers screwed up. They were kind of new at this people voting thing. They didn't trust non-whites or females to vote. They didn't trust non landowners and they didn't trust the people electing both houses

But don't worry....we corrected their mistake and are better off because of it