Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[kwc57]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

Kind of like the lets give illegal aliens amnesty to buy their votes and in the meantime we won't require a "voter" to prove they are registered and qualified to vote so we can go ahead and get their votes now and if anyone questions it, we'll call them racist. That kind of scam?

If I'm not mistaken there has been no amnesty granted since RayGun did it in the 80's.

I had to prove who I was when I registered to vote. Now that I'm registered all I need to do is show my voter registration card to vote, or a drivers license......

Repealing the 17th would mean less democracy. I do not support repealing it.

Democrats are fighting for amnesty if you haven't heard.

Democrats are fighting voter ID laws so no one would have to prove they are registered when they vote....numerous times in numerous places.

Nonsense. You elect your state legislators to represent your interests and they in turn select your US Senators to represent the interests of your state. It has no effect on democracy.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Repeal of the 17th will never happen. Mindless reactionaries will immediately claim you're trying to take away people's voting rights.

In my opinion, we should just abolish the U.S. Senate because it no longer serves the purpose it was created for. It was intended to represent the interest of the individual state government so that the federal government couldn't become too powerful and overbearing. The 17th Amendment did away with that protection so I see no purpose for the body to continue to exist if we aren't willing to roll back the clock.

I've always thought of creating a Third House where the representatives were named "Ambassadors," just like the old Senators were used to be called, and they would be chosen by the State Legislatures.

 

[kwc57]

No

They both represent the people

The Founders clearly stated the Senate represents the states and the states' authority over the federal government. The 17th amendment greatly undermined that intent.

In other words, only politicians can represent the states in the federal government. What makes you anti-democrats so conceited? You only get where you are through birth or brown-nosing. And yet you say we are jealous of you. Why would we want to be like you? I'd rather stand up like a man to the self-appointed boss than lick his boots.

Hey Peewee, does your mom know you use her computer while she is gone to work?

 

[PrometheusBound]

It pains me greatly to have to agree with Lonestar on anything (my brother is one of those folks residing in Texas who was not born there and is generally considered an American rather than a Texan, as "Texans" seem to deem the two categories mutually exclusive). But he has one thing right, although he gets there by the wrong route.

Who do you think elected Senators before the 17th Amendment? Here's a hint, it was the state legislature. And who are the folks in state legislature? Elected officials from across the state, so in essence everyone in the State is represented in the state legislature. Therefore no one is disenfranchised.

In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) the United States Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision (Harlan alone dissenting) that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. The specific case dealt with the Alabama Senate (the plaintiffs were from Jefferson County [Birmingham]). In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Everett Dirksen was sufficiently enraged to push for a Constitutional amendment to allow for states to have disproportionate legislative districts, but it went nowhere.

So a return to electing US Senators by state legislatures would skew the Senate a bit, but only to the degree that voters in substantially equal population districts in the state would vote for one party in a direct US Senate election and the other party in state legislative elections.

Second-hand, third-hand, etc. voting gets farther and farther away from the people. It's like the Constitutionazi nonsense that, "We vote for the President, the President appoints Supreme Court justices, so we vote for the Supreme Court."

 

[NYcarbineer]

That's hardly a case for taking away an individual's right to vote for a Senator.

How do you think state legislators become state legislators?

Who is more responsive to the people, a U.S. Senator, or a state assemblyman?

The most responsive people to the people are the people themselves.

Why should the assemblyman in my district, that I didn't vote for, be entitled to decide for me which candidate for the Senate to vote for?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

Are you are the 17th Amendment was a Progressive how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-tryanny-of-the-majority scam?

Notice it was ratified (by forgery) in the same year, 1913 of the 16th Amendment (IRS) and the creation of the Federal Reserve, so the Keynasians could control both the supply, demand, and distribution of currency --- and then the Great Depression happened --- and the Keynesians increased government intervention, instead of reducing it ... oh right --- they orchestrated the Great Depression for that very same purpose.

Go fuck yourself commie.

And within a couple of decades the Progressive scum capped the House of Reps, now instead of having 1 Representative for every 30,000 people, we have one Rep for every 700,000+ people.

Total Oligarchy, the way Communism always resolves.

The people have no control over the Federal Government in the House, and the States have no control over the federal government in the Senate, the corporations however, have control of both ... oh right again --- as intended.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would like to change it back to the states deciding their Senators. The reason, so less influence by corporate money. Also it would hopefully get rid of 30year Senators.

Are you serious? It's a lot easier to buy off a few politicians in a state legislature than a few million voters in a state.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

You "believe" ? I think its quite obvious that is fact! Everything the Republicans do is motivated by winning at any cost to democracy. Heck - a lot of them don't even think we should have a democracy. Republicans believe - and are correct - that if they limit the power of the American voter, they will be better positioned.

I think you need to replace Republican with Democrat and you'd be exactly correct

And you are right, we shouldn't have a democracy. We should have a Republic. Which is what our Founders gave us.

A republic is an elitist aristocracy. Which is what our Founding Fodder gave us.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

A republic is an elitist aristocracy. Which is what our Founding Fodder gave us.

Interesting, because it appears that today we have an elitist aristocracy in Congress, great private schooling, healthcare, private jets ... lots of golf ... bought and paid for by the IMF and the Federal Reserve ...

 

[Uncensored2008]

The 17th amendment doesn't deprive the states of equal suffrage in the Senate you blubbering moron. Each state still has 2 Senators. Where did you go to school? I just wanna make sure I don't send my kid there.

I take it that your kid is Promethiusbound, right?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I would like to change it back to the states deciding their Senators. The reason, so less influence by corporate money. Also it would hopefully get rid of 30year Senators.

Are you serious? It's a lot easier to buy off a few politicians in a state legislature than a few million voters in a state.

Prove it.

Prove that Senators have ever been bought off before or even after the 17th Amendment.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I believe it should be repealed for the reason Madison cited.

As President, Madison managed to get the nation's capital burned down, more incompetent in national defense than even the Heir Guardsman was. He's doing it again, the pint-sized Dolley doll.

He also holds the record for longest Presidential vacation.

Eight years!

 

[g5000]

That's hardly a case for taking away an individual's right to vote for a Senator.

How do you think state legislators become state legislators?

Who is more responsive to the people, a U.S. Senator, or a state assemblyman?

The most responsive people to the people are the people themselves.

Why should the assemblyman in my district, that I didn't vote for, be entitled to decide for me which candidate for the Senate to vote for?

Has your state assembly passed laws against animal cruelty? I bet it has.

How would you feel if the US Senate passed a law preempting your state's laws against animal cruelty?

This is not some fantasy scenario. This is a real world example. Republican Steve King is trying to include exactly such a preemption in the Farm Bill before Congress right now.

If your US Senator was appointed by your state legislature, what do you think the odds are that he would go against them and nullify their laws?

That is the kind of check on federal power which has been missing since the 17th amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So apparently all of you who support this change think that the people of Massachusetts would have been better served if they had never gotten the chance to elect Scott Brown...

...because he didn't stand a chance in hell of ever being elected by the MA legislature.

Why do you think that would have been better for the People of Massachusetts?

So...

...not one of you can tell us why this would have made things better for the People of Massachusetts?

One single real-life example, and you can't use it to show good cause for making this change?

What would be the point of the change then? And if the change is pointless, why bother?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Of course the GOP wants to eliminate more of the public voting.

They truly believe in "running it like a business" when it comes to government. Business is a dictatorship model. A single CEO calling all the shots. Power concentrated in the hands of a few. You think they believe the slugs in the mailroom or warehouse DESERVE any say-so in company operations? HELL NO. Those people need to know their place on the totem pole and shut-up.

And that's how the GOP wants government run. SMALLER government (meaning, less government workers) but, the same amount of power....just, you know, concentrated in the hands of a few- themselves of course.

They know they've lost the population. The younger generations are far more left of center than ever before, and the ones coming after them will be too. They know their brand is a dinosaur on it's last breathe. ONLY by taking the voter out of the equation can they keep power.

Just saw the piece on how the North Carolina GOP is fighting tooth and nail to stop all the college kids on NC campuses from voting. They even took Boone County NC, home of Appalachian State, and have closed ALL voting booths except ONE in the whole county!!! WHy? Well, Boone's long time residents are right wing. Boones college students are not. So, they wont those college students to stop voting. Same in all the other NC college towns.

More mindless demagoguery - devoid of logic or reason...

You're a one trick pony, Comrade Bucs.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Libretardian secret oath: "What's best for the 1% is best for all you worthless little people too."

When do you turn 12?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

I would like to change it back to the states deciding their Senators. The reason, so less influence by corporate money. Also it would hopefully get rid of 30year Senators.

Are you serious? It's a lot easier to buy off a few politicians in a state legislature than a few million voters in a state.

Tunnel vision.

The nomination process is MUCH easier to "buy off" since millions of voters cannot individually communicate with each other.

So there's no need to "buy off" millions of voters, because they've already been circumvented by the nomination process. Now the IMF and the Federal Reserve and other mega-corps plant 1 Democrat and 1 Republican into the nomination spot, and the millions of voters have to choose between either one corporate puppet or an identical corporate puppet.

Democracy in action! True Democracy always devolves into Oligarchy.

Article IV, Section 4 (US Constitution):

The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government.

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This means that the Founders, by centuries of historical evidence and empirical data (The Constitution is not some intellectual 'hat-trick,' it's a document of experience and wisdom), decided that a Republic was the only form of government for a Free State (not Democracy, as anicent Greece and many others demonstrated that true democracy always devolves into oligarchy --- quite rapidly).

The Second Amendment and Article IV, Section 4, combined, tell you the purpose of the Compact between the States, also known as the Constitution.

The Ninth Amendment is the philosophical foundation of the Constitution, Popular Sovereignty vs Divine Right.

Yet ivory towers intellectuals collude and tell us that Article Section 4 is meaningless, the Ninth Amendment has no basis in reality, and that the Second Amendment is obsolete... the three most important phrases in the Constitution have been reduced to zero by the Communist Thought Factories.

 

[rightwinger]

The only reasons conservatives want to stop directly electing Senators is because they can't win statewide elections

They can take statehouses however

 

[g5000]

The only reasons conservatives want to stop directly electing Senators is because they can't win statewide elections

They can take statehouses however

While I am greatly disappointed in what the GOP and the conservative movement have become in recent years, the success and failure of the Republicans and Democrats is cyclical.

The impact of the 17th Amendment has been quite grievous in the long term.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The only reasons conservatives want to stop directly electing Senators is because they can't win statewide elections

They can take statehouses however

And there was a reason it was made that way at the very start.

Tyranny of the Majority is the most powerful and unblockable tyranny of all.

We live in nation (not a federation, a nation, huge difference), where 51% of the population can rob the other 49%, fuck they could even exterminate them (once guns are banned, be that ban direct, or indirect through a myriad of regulations and procedures)