Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[Missouri_Mike]

Repeal the 17th. First of all it would force people to pay much closer attention to their state reps than they do today which will not only help the state they live in but help push more representive senators to the federal level. Taking the vote away from the state senate and putting it in the popular vote system did exactly what it was designed to do. It took the state level government out of the equasion and focused the power to the federal level.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

We don't have a democracy, it's a f*cking republic! There are some very good reasons for this if you would take the time to look into the difference and why it was done this way.

We have a representative democracy. Look it up.

 

[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.

Senators are supposed to represent their state. In order to be representative of the state, they need to be elected by the people of the state,

not appointed by the legislature.

I ask again:

why would it have been better if Scott Brown had not been able to be Senator from Massachusetts?

No one can answer that question, therefore no one has a single good reason why this cockeyed system ought to be resurrected.

Yes, Senators are supposed to represent their state, have I said otherwise?

What exactly does Scott Brown have to do with this? He was an emergency appointment (I think).

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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.

We don't have a democracy, it's a f*cking republic! There are some very good reasons for this if you would take the time to look into the difference and why it was done this way.

We have a representative democracy. Look it up.

Article IV, Section 4 Contradicts you:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Senators are supposed to represent their state. In order to be representative of the state, they need to be elected by the people of the state,

not appointed by the legislature.

I ask again:

why would it have been better if Scott Brown had not been able to be Senator from Massachusetts?

No one can answer that question, therefore no one has a single good reason why this cockeyed system ought to be resurrected.

Yes, Senators are supposed to represent their state, have I said otherwise?

What exactly does Scott Brown have to do with this? He was an emergency appointment (I think).

Scott Brown was elected to "Ted Kennedy's seat" remember?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Senators get 'bought off' AFTER they become senators.

In a state legislature election of senators, there might be less than ten swing votes that could needed to be 'bought off'.

So what are all these campaign contributions before they get elected?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Repeal the 17th. First of all it would force people to pay much closer attention to their state reps than they do today which will not only help the state they live in but help push more representive senators to the federal level. Taking the vote away from the state senate and putting it in the popular vote system did exactly what it was designed to do. It took the state level government out of the equasion and focused the power to the federal level.

That's nonsensical. State legislator and US Senator are 2 different jobs. I should be able to vote for the kind of guy I want to do the job of state representative without having to worry about who he's going to vote for for Senator.

I have voted for the Republican candidate from my district, because I thought he was the better choice at the time, however,

if he had had a vote for Senator, I would have voted for the Democrat, just to keep some idiot like Rick Lazio from getting elected.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

All they currently buy off are Senators, they fund their re-election, then lobby them. More expensive to buy a state off than two Senators. Look how easy it was for insurance to make big bucks under Obamacare.

Senators get 'bought off' AFTER they become senators.

In a state legislature election of senators, there might be less than ten swing votes that could needed to be 'bought off'.

It is a lot cheaper for the Koch brothers to buy off a couple of State Senate seats than a US Senate seat.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Senators are supposed to represent their state. In order to be representative of the state, they need to be elected by the people of the state,

not appointed by the legislature.

I ask again:

why would it have been better if Scott Brown had not been able to be Senator from Massachusetts?

No one can answer that question, therefore no one has a single good reason why this cockeyed system ought to be resurrected.

Yes, Senators are supposed to represent their state, have I said otherwise?

What exactly does Scott Brown have to do with this? He was an emergency appointment (I think).

Scott Brown was elected to "Ted Kennedy's seat" remember?

Going by the Wikipedia:

The 2010 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts was a special election held on January 19, 2010, in order to fill the Massachusetts Class I United States Senate seat for the remainder of the term ending January 3, 2013. It was won by Republican candidate Scott Brown.

The vacancy that prompted the special election was created by the death of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy on August 25, 2009. (Kennedy served as Senator since 1962, having been elected in a special election in 1962 to fill the vacancy created when his brother John F. Kennedy was elected President of the United States in 1960.) The seat was held until the election by an appointee, Senator Paul Kirk, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who was not a candidate in the election to complete the term.

So how is this relevant to the 17th Amendment?

 

[Contumacious]

We the people directly voting for our representatives is now Marxist?

You are crazier than I had thought

Tyranny by the majority is tyranny nevertheless.

 

[rightwinger]

Is it better for our Senators to be beholden to the people who elected them or the State Senators who appointed them?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Senators are supposed to represent their state. In order to be representative of the state, they need to be elected by the people of the state,

not appointed by the legislature.

.

"
The senators being eligible by the legislatures of the several states, and dependent on them for reëlection, will be vigilant in supporting their rights against infringement by the legislature or executive of the United States; and the government of the Union being federal, and instituted by the several states for the advancement of their interests, they may be considered as so many pillars to support it, and, by the exercise of the state governments, peace and good order may be preserved in places most remote from the seat of the federal government, as well as at the centre."

Roger Sherman

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The real life effect of this is that Democrats would gain in state legislatures, because the implications of having Republican majorities in those state legislatures would get out the Democrat vote,

and turnout is always the weak link in the Democratic Party.

 

[NYcarbineer]

We the people directly voting for our representatives is now Marxist?

You are crazier than I had thought

Tyranny by the majority is tyranny nevertheless.

You can't have a functional government without winners AND losers.

 

[OriginalShroom]

A question for those who support the current system.. pro-17th Amendment.

If both houses of the Congress are direct elections by the people, who is at the Federal Level to represent the voice of the States.

I would like to remind people that we are the "United States of America"... not the "United People of America". There are 50 Sovreign States, each with different needs, concerns, and responsiblities.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Jeebus you're a brainwashed fool. This house is a gerrymandered mess. The "no compromise, un-American Tea Pary GOP (TIME)" fixed it so they have more reps even though they lost the popular vote, and have ruined everything since. A disgrace.

Stupid fascist, no commies here. Keep fighting for the greedy idiot rich and ditto corporations. Just how the nonrich and the country have been ruined the last 30 years. See sig.

You didn't even respond to the question.

Yes, the house is a gerrymandered mess, but that has nothing to do with my question.
------------------
But in regards to the Gerrymandering, it was done by the Commies and Fascists alike. They capped the number of Representatives, so instead of having 1 Rep for 30,000 people, now you have 1 Rep per 700,000. If they uncapped the House and returned to 1 Rep for every 30,000, we would have about 9000 Representatives. Try Gerrymandering that.

They're elected by different entities- you can't gerrymander a state. Duh. UNLESS you repeal the 17th. Moral: The new bs GOP suqs, and hater dupes are functional idiots.

 

[rightwinger]

A question for those who support the current system.. pro-17th Amendment.

If both houses of the Congress are direct elections by the people, who is at the Federal Level to represent the voice of the States.

I would like to remind people that we are the "United States of America"... not the "United People of America". There are 50 Sovreign States, each with different needs, concerns, and responsiblities.

The voice of the States is reflected in their Congressmen and Senators duly elected by the people of that state

The state is nothing but an entity of the people in that state

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Sorry, I meant 14th. Unlike you, I make mistakes and typos.

 

[OriginalShroom]

A question for those who support the current system.. pro-17th Amendment.

If both houses of the Congress are direct elections by the people, who is at the Federal Level to represent the voice of the States.

I would like to remind people that we are the "United States of America"... not the "United People of America". There are 50 Sovreign States, each with different needs, concerns, and responsiblities.

The voice of the States is reflected in their Congressmen and Senators duly elected by the people of that state

The state is nothing but an entity of the people in that state

It's like talking to a tape recorder... The same answer regardless what the question is. It's as if some people have never been taught to think for themselves.

 

[rightwinger]

A question for those who support the current system.. pro-17th Amendment.

If both houses of the Congress are direct elections by the people, who is at the Federal Level to represent the voice of the States.

I would like to remind people that we are the "United States of America"... not the "United People of America". There are 50 Sovreign States, each with different needs, concerns, and responsiblities.

The voice of the States is reflected in their Congressmen and Senators duly elected by the people of that state

The state is nothing but an entity of the people in that state

It's like talking to a tape recorder... The same answer regardless what the question is. It's as if some people have never been taught to think for themselves.

Millions of Americans think for themselves and directly elect their representatives

Conservatives want to take that away from them because those Americans no longer support conservative candidates