Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[PrometheusBound]

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.

The difference is who is doing the buying, not whether anyone is being bought.

With election by the legislatures, the Senator is owned by the state Congress and represents the state as a unit.

With state wide election, the Senator represents the national level corporations and banks that buy their political ads by the millions for them instead, and not the state governments nor the people of the states.

In your majority-hating fantasy. In reality, an elected Senator from Iowa has always represented farming interests and from Texas, oil interests, etc. I'm not talking about a few CEOs in Big Oil or agribusiness. In those states, the Big Boys provide jobs and spend a lot of money, so the people are represented.

Again, second-hand vote through the legislature is too susceptible to betraying the voters. Of course you know all that; you want to preach your laissez faire fairy tale to get the kind of government that is easiest to bribe. No need for expensive and unreliable campaign commercials to brainwash millions of people. Just a little greasing of palms at the state Capitol.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Geez, why not have the Governor just pick the Senators, the House reps, and cast one vote for President on behalf of the state?

 

[g5000]

Geez, why not have the Governor just pick the Senators, the House reps, and cast one vote for President on behalf of the state?

Why would we want to go to such an extreme?

 

[Contumacious]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:



In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

t.

The "Amendment" ought to abolish instead of repealed since it was NEVER adopted.

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.[2]



Utah REJECTED the amendment and several states did not vote for it.

.

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.

OK Fucktard, if doesn't make a difference what was the purpose of the "amendment".?!?!?!?

Now we have two Houses of Representatives


ILLEGALITY OF THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT

BACKGROUND - Prior to adoption of the seventeenth amendment, U.S. senators were elected by their state’s legislature. They were a direct representative of the state and indirectly represented ‘we the people.’ The primary reason for the two houses of Congress being elected in different ways was to insulate senators from public pressure. Adoption of the 17th Amendment subjected the Senate to lobbyists. To be elected to the U.S. Senate today one must have millions of dollars and be a darling of the major media outlets, all of which are controlled by the financial/industrial cartel promoting the New World Order. Today, Senate candidates must sell their soul and vote to the cartel to be elected."

.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Geez, why not have the Governor just pick the Senators, the House reps, and cast one vote for President on behalf of the state?

1) Because the People of each State choose how their State Legislature is elected, which may vary from State to State, and does.

2) The House of Reps is meant to be the popular check of the Federal Government.

3) This was discussed for months at the Constitutional Convention and for any more months during the ratification debates and other publications (Federalist Papers). Maybe you should learn about the Constitution before you comment on it --- oh wait, you're a Libtard.

 

[PrometheusBound]

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?

Buzz off, insect! BZZZZ...Splat! Sorry, I couldn't help doing that (said to my flyswatter).

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Also, here's a good question to throw at a Commie on the subject:

"If the people get it wrong in the House of Representatives, what makes you think they would also not get it wrong when they elected the Senate? What is the point of two houses of Popular Representation?"

Obviously if one house fails, the other house, chosen by the same entity, will also fail.

The Communist can never answer this question, because in order to answer it, they must first admit that the People can act as a Tyranny of the Majority, which is supposed to be impossible according to Commie ideology.

Choke on that Commies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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

They can take statehouses however

Even for you, that is abysmally stupid.

The California Assembly ain't going to send Republican Senators to Washington.

The only reason you leftists oppose this is fear that you can't have a bought off Senator like Feinstein for 40 years running. You don't relish having to bribe new ones every 6 years.

 

[g5000]

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.

OK Fucktard, if doesn't make a difference what was the purpose of the "amendment".?!?!?!?

Now we have two Houses of Representatives


ILLEGALITY OF THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT

BACKGROUND - Prior to adoption of the seventeenth amendment, U.S. senators were elected by their state’s legislature. They were a direct representative of the state and indirectly represented ‘we the people.’ The primary reason for the two houses of Congress being elected in different ways was to insulate senators from public pressure. Adoption of the 17th Amendment subjected the Senate to lobbyists. To be elected to the U.S. Senate today one must have millions of dollars and be a darling of the major media outlets, all of which are controlled by the financial/industrial cartel promoting the New World Order. Today, Senate candidates must sell their soul and vote to the cartel to be elected."

.

The 17th amendment is not illegal. However, the proposal we now have two Houses of Representatives as a result of it is fair.

And, cartel conspiracies aside, the fact a Senator now has to devote a great deal of time to campaigning is also a deleterious effect.

 

[g5000]

I would like to expound a little more on the negative consequences of a Senator having to campaign in a direct election.

To get elected, a candidate has to raise a lot of money. This means asking special interests for a lot of money.

We spoke of a few varieties of corruption so far. Gerrymandering, state legislators bought by special interests.

A US Senator isn't bought by special interests? Since federal power has expanded considerably, I would say federal officials are even more prone to being owned.

You have all heard me say we need to ban all tax expenditures. Special interests would lose one chief motive for donating to incumbent Congressmen if those lawmakers were unable to give tax breaks to their "friends".

Well, another big corrupting influence is cash in exchange for regulatory favors.

If a Senator has no need to campaign, he has no need for campaign cash, and therefore he won't feel pressure to dispense regulatory favors in exchange for campaign cash.

Not having to campaign would be a check on the lower House which is even more susceptible to these corrupting influences.

 

[Pheonixops]

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.

What if the above was phrased this way:

"Has your state assembly passed Jim Crow laws? I bet it has.

How would you feel if the US Senate passed a law preempting your state's Jim Crow laws ?"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

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.

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.

I have two questions.

Why should we go back to a system that the people who were experienced with obviously thought wasn't working? History clearly indicates that, even states without any allegations of corruption and toadyism, thought direct election of Senators was beneficial. Quite a few states had move to that system even without the amendment pushing other states to adopt it, and it was ratified in less than a year, which is pretty remarkable in and of itself.

What evidence does anyone have that the 17th Amendment is responsible for the reprehensible expansion of power of the federal government? I mean, seriously, other than wanting to go back to something that clearly was highly unpopular, how do we know it would make a difference? What if it makes things worse?

Personally, I see no real argument in favor of repealing it that doesn't appeal to emotions instead of logic. No one has any evidence that direct election of Senators actually results in a loss of state power, yet they insist it somehow does. Until people can point out specifically why we should do this it looks like a step back to me.

It would make more sense to repeal the 13th Amendment, since that is the one that actually gave the federal government authority to trample state laws. It is also directly responsible for the cases which you site as a reason to overturn the 17th Amendment. It is federal law, based on the 13th Amendment, that mandates voting districts that account for race. Since the 13th predates the 17th, why blame the 17th for what the13th enabled?

 

[chikenwing]

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.

While I agree that there is little chance of an amendment such as this passing, it would go a LONG way toward restoring the voice of the people in the federal government.

Having the state legislatures select Senators ensured that those Senators were loyal to the states. Currently the Senate is an imperial body, serving DC, generally against the interests of the states - this applies to both parties. After all, Senators are selected by national bodies, the DNC or RNC, respectively. I hate to give credit to Neuman on anything, but in this he is correct, popular elections tend to be a farce. Take Hillary, for example. Arkansas first lady Clinton is installed as a NY Senator - HUH? Well, the party decided to appoint her to the Senate, and the seat in Arkansas lacks sufficient power, plus there was too great a chance of defeat, so the party installed her in New York.

The people had no say over it, it was decided in back room deals, with the ONLY choice offered the public, that of Republican or democrat. Far let NY City does not allow Republicans to be elected, so Hillary was anointed.

So, who did Hillary serve? Sure the fuck not the people of New York, they didn't put her in power, the elite of the DNC did. Hillary served the national party alone.

IF the state legislature appointed Senators, no way in hell would Hillary have been the pick, it still would have been a democrat, but one beholden to the STATE, not to the imperial DNC.

To recap, Senators appointed by state legislators will be responsive to state issues, for this reason, repeal of the 17th Amendment is positive step toward restoring liberty to this nation.

Chuck Shumer gives me worms,but he is more of a Senator for NY than carpetbagger Clinton ever was,we were used simple as that.

 

[Pheonixops]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

So why did our country feel it necessary to change that?

First, it was widely believed that state legislators were easily bought. There were several cases of such corruption which fed into this belief. And one only has to pick up a local newspaper to see this is still true today.

Second, just ponder how often the US Senate is deadlocked today by partisans. The same was true of state legislatures.

Between 1891 and 1905, 46 elections were deadlocked, in 20 different states; in one extreme example, a Senate seat for Delaware went unfilled from 1899 until 1903. The business of holding elections also caused great disruption in the state legislatures, with a full third of the Oregon House of Representatives choosing not to swear the oath of office in 1897 due to a dispute over an open Senate seat. The result was that the legislature was unable to pass legislation that year.

By the time the 17th amendment was a viable proposal, 33 states had already changed their election laws so that their Senators were chosen by popular vote. 31 state legislatures had passed resolutions calling for a Constitutional amendment allowing popular vote, and ten Republicans who opposed an amendment lost their seats. 27 states were calling for a constitutional convention, with 31 being the threshold.


But there is yet more to this than meets the eye. Much more.

You see, in the past voter district lines were based on geography, not population. Voting districts were given equal geographic size, the result of which was rural votes were seriously overweighted. There might be 20 times as many people in an urban voting district, but they were given one representative in the state legislature, and the rural district was also given one representative in the state legislature even though it had much fewer people in it.

In such a scheme, one can see how the votes of rural voters, who tend to be conservatives, greatly outweigh the votes of urban voters (who tend to be liberal).

Three Supreme Court decisions changed all that. These are known as the "one man, one vote" decisions. District lines are now based on population.


But...US Senate districts (the states) are still based on geography. And there are still more rural states than heavily urbanized states.

You can see where this is going.

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.

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.

I have two questions.

Why should we go back to a system that the people who were experienced with obviously thought wasn't working? History clearly indicates that, even states without any allegations of corruption and toadyism, thought direct election of Senators was beneficial. Quite a few states had move to that system even without the amendment pushing other states to adopt it, and it was ratified in less than a year, which is pretty remarkable in and of itself.

What evidence does anyone have that the 17th Amendment is responsible for the reprehensible expansion of power of the federal government? I mean, seriously, other than wanting to go back to something that clearly was highly unpopular, how do we know it would make a difference? What if it makes things worse?

Personally, I see no real argument in favor of repealing it that doesn't appeal to emotions instead of logic. N one has any evidence that direct election of Senators actually results in a loss of state power, yet they insist it somehow does. Until people can point out specifically why we should do this it looks like a step back to me.

It would make more sense to repeal the 13th Amendment, since that is the one that actually gave the federal government authority to trample state laws. It is also directly responsible for the cases which you site as a reason to overturn the 17th Amendment. It is federal law, based on the 13th Amendment, that mandates voting districts that account for race. Since the 13th predates the 17th, why blame the 17th for what the13th enabled?

Yep.

"By 1910, 31 state legislatures had passed motions calling for reform. By 1912, 239 political parties at both the state and national level had pledged some form of direct election, and 33 states had introduced the use of direct primaries."

 

[chikenwing]

Repeal it ,the place is a joke ,any changes will have the same effect on any party so the blubbering about fairness is silly.

 

[Plasmaball]

2 Points.

Levin is doing this because he see's the writing on the wall and wants to cling to whatever advantage the right has left.

it looks like the 17th just makes things more simple. removing one act so the people directly vote.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Any time you give the selection of representatives to the people you are better off. I trust the judgement of the average voter over that of some politician making back room deals over who gets to be the next Senator

 

[chikenwing]

2 Points.

Levin is doing this because he see's the writing on the wall and wants to cling to whatever advantage the right has left.

it looks like the 17th just makes things more simple. removing one act so the people directly vote.

Voter apathy is enough,40 -50 years is well way to fucking long for anyone.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

OK Fucktard, if doesn't make a difference what was the purpose of the "amendment".?!?!?!?

Now we have two Houses of Representatives


ILLEGALITY OF THE SEVENTEENTH AMENDMENT

BACKGROUND - Prior to adoption of the seventeenth amendment, U.S. senators were elected by their state’s legislature. They were a direct representative of the state and indirectly represented ‘we the people.’ The primary reason for the two houses of Congress being elected in different ways was to insulate senators from public pressure. Adoption of the 17th Amendment subjected the Senate to lobbyists. To be elected to the U.S. Senate today one must have millions of dollars and be a darling of the major media outlets, all of which are controlled by the financial/industrial cartel promoting the New World Order. Today, Senate candidates must sell their soul and vote to the cartel to be elected."

.

The 17th amendment is not illegal. However, the proposal we now have two Houses of Representatives as a result of it is fair.

And, cartel conspiracies aside, the fact a Senator now has to devote a great deal of time to campaigning is also a deleterious effect.

It is fucking ILLEGAL:

" the system of federalism or "divided sovereignty" that the founding fathers created with the Constitution was never intended to be enforced by the Supreme Court alone. Congress, the president, and most importantly, the citizens of the states, were also to have an equal say on constitutional matters."

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0739102869/lewrockwell/"]Ralph A. Rossum’s book, Federalism, the Supreme Court, and the Seventeenth Amendment. [/ame]

.

 

[g5000]

I have two questions.

Why should we go back to a system that the people who were experienced with obviously thought wasn't working? History clearly indicates that, even states without any allegations of corruption and toadyism, thought direct election of Senators was beneficial. Quite a few states had move to that system even without the amendment pushing other states to adopt it, and it was ratified in less than a year, which is pretty remarkable in and of itself.

What evidence does anyone have that the 17th Amendment is responsible for the reprehensible expansion of power of the federal government? I mean, seriously, other than wanting to go back to something that clearly was highly unpopular, how do we know it would make a difference? What if it makes things worse?

Personally, I see no real argument in favor of repealing it that doesn't appeal to emotions instead of logic. N one has any evidence that direct election of Senators actually results in a loss of state power, yet they insist it somehow does. Until people can point out specifically why we should do this it looks like a step back to me.

It would make more sense to repeal the 13th Amendment, since that is the one that actually gave the federal government authority to trample state laws. It is also directly responsible for the cases which you site as a reason to overturn the 17th Amendment. It is federal law, based on the 13th Amendment, that mandates voting districts that account for race. Since the 13th predates the 17th, why blame the 17th for what the13th enabled?

The 13th amendment's abolition of slavery gave the federal government the authority to trample state laws?