Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Listening]

One man....one vote

One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!

You see that shows just what people don't know.

That is not a founding principle of this country.

It wasn't until Earl Warren, the decidely activist asshole on the SCOTUS decided it needed to be one in 1964.

This is almost scary.

 

[Listening]

One man one vote is mobocracy...The kind where the looters and layabouts vote themselves the possessions of the industrious and productive.

But we already know that you like mob rule, so it's easy to understand your support for the moocher and the thug.

Yes!

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"

The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.

But I already know that you don't give a shit anyways.

He should give some, he's full of it.

Your words seem lost on those whose minds are made up. The arguments you make, based on original writings are correct. And the entire premise of the senate was in place until 1913. Sometimes, you don't know what you had until you lost it. And that is just what the states did. Now, it is time to see if we can either get it back or put a parallel system in place for watching over both the house and the superhouse (the senate) on behalf of those states.

Blog was a bummer....but can anyone recall just how many federal legislators have been involved in lately ?

 

[Vidi]

Yes!

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"

Part of the reasons for the 17th were discord among state legislatures, vote buying, and accusations of fraud in voting. An unwise repeal of an Amendment giving power to citizens is not called for.

That's the story as told by the progressive winners, who removed one of the checks and balances of the original republic....Yet we still have voter fraud and plenty of vote buying, though not by the same frauds and vote buyers.

The thinking person would in turn tend to not believe the alleged reasons for the 17th Amendment, if much the same conditions existed afterward as before.

Yes! Let's take power away from the voters and put in the hands of more ALEC owned politicians! That'll fix it!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Any who argue that power should rest in property and wealth than in the people is that much less than human. Sad.

 

[rightwinger]

One man....one vote

One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!

You see that shows just what people don't know.

That is not a founding principle of this country.

It wasn't until Earl Warren, the decidely activist asshole on the SCOTUS decided it needed to be one in 1964.

This is almost scary.

You are, of course, correct

It was that activist asshole judge Earl Warren who stepped in and made sure blacks in this country had equal access to the polls.

 

[Toro]

Since it is generally those who who have the less (i.e. city dwellers) that try to vote themselves the resources of those who have more than they, it makes perfect sense for those who have more to lose to have a balanced say in the political arena.

Why do you assume that?

The biggest recipients of welfare in the country are farmers through farm subsidies, income supports, energy policy and tariffs. Farmers and landholders are no less venal and greedy than everyone else, and have proven to be more than willing to use the government as an income transfer mechanism for themselves at the expense of everyone else. Giving them even more power will almost certainly make it more likely that they will increase the amount they line their own pockets at the expense of everyone else.

I assume that because I can read maps.....BTW, most farm subsidies go to big corporate operations (i.e. ConAgra, Cargill, ADM).

And most family farmers happily rake in the government welfare paid for by non-farmers. So the notion that somehow property rights will be more strictly enforced doesn't wash. All it demonstrates is that landholders will happily use government power to line their own pockets at taxpayers' expense.

 

[Toro]

Why do you assume it wouldn't be more spending? Are you arguing that state politicians are less venal and corrupt? If so, whatever you're smoking, pass me some. The idea that an unelected Senate would adhere closer to the principles of the Founding Fathers is merely romantic claptrap.

Because, with apportionment anyways, the onus for collecting federal taxes was passed onto state agencies....This is why there was no income tax either.

If the Senators passed along a huge tax increase onto the states for collection, there'd be hell to pay from the Senator(s), to the state lawmakers, to the Governor for seating such a person.

You make assumptions about behavior that are theoretical and probably do not hold. Most federal government spending goes towards three areas - defense, SS and Medicare. These programs are very popular. The popularity of these programs would instead be transmitted through the state level. Thus your argument could be turned on it's head. There would be hell to pay at the state level for an appointed Senator who chose to slash SS payments.

It's a romantic nostalgic notion from a time that no longer exists.

 

[Navy1960]

All agreed to a republican form of government grounded in representing the people in the states. For the legislature, two issues were to be decided, (1) how the votes were to be allocated among the states in the Congress, and (2) how the representatives should be elected. The question was settled by the Connecticut Compromise or "Great Compromise". In the House, state power was to be based on population and the people would vote. In the Senate, state power was to be based on state legislature election, two Senators generally to be elected by different state legislatures to better reflect the long term interests of the people living in each state.

"The use of the Senate is to consist in proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch." James Madison

History of the United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

." In the minds of many of the Founding Fathers, the Senate would be an American kind of House of Lords. John Dickinson said the Senate should "consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible."[

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” openly admitted that the equal suffrage in the Senate was a compromise, a “lesser evil,” and not born out of any political theory.

Since 1789, the Senate has become much more malaportioned. At the time of the Connecticut Compromise, the largest state, Virginia, had only twelve times the population of the smallest state, Delaware. Today, the largest state, California, has a population that is seventy times greater than the population of the smallest state, Wyoming. In 1790, it would take a theoretical 30% of the population to elect a majority of the Senate, today it would take 17%. Today, there are seven states with only one congressman (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming); never in the past has there been as high a proportion of one-congressmen states.

Here's the thing, at the time of the Constitutional Convention many of the Founding Fathers looked at the British House of Lords as a system to copy as it were when it came to the Senate and further still the Roman Senate as a model. The Senate's creation was a result of Compromise between the states and not some grand plan by one man. Over the proceeding years after it's creation, especially when it came to the State Legislatures picking Senators, there was a long history of graft and corruption as well as deadlocks that led to the 17th Amendment. The idea of direct election of Senators was not something that just came up during the debate for the 17th Amendment , it's been part of this nations great debate all the way back to James Wilson a signer of the Constitution and member of the " Committee of Detail"

 

[Listening]

Why do you assume it wouldn't be more spending? Are you arguing that state politicians are less venal and corrupt? If so, whatever you're smoking, pass me some. The idea that an unelected Senate would adhere closer to the principles of the Founding Fathers is merely romantic claptrap.

Because, with apportionment anyways, the onus for collecting federal taxes was passed onto state agencies....This is why there was no income tax either.

If the Senators passed along a huge tax increase onto the states for collection, there'd be hell to pay from the Senator(s), to the state lawmakers, to the Governor for seating such a person.

You make assumptions about behavior that are theoretical and probably do not hold. Most federal government spending goes towards three areas - defense, SS and Medicare. These programs are very popular. The popularity of these programs would instead be transmitted through the state level. Thus your argument could be turned on it's head. There would be hell to pay at the state level for an appointed Senator who chose to slash SS payments.

It's a romantic nostalgic notion from a time that no longer exists.

SS is about to become a nostalgic notin itself. Had the 17th not come along, we would not have generations of people who potentially will be living on dogfood because they somehow thought the government would take care of them.

Let's bring it back and see what happens.

Hell, it can't be worse than we've got today.

 

[Listening]

One man....one vote

One of the founding principles of our country. The vote of some bum living in a cardboard box counts the same as a mega millionaires. What a country!

You see that shows just what people don't know.

That is not a founding principle of this country.

It wasn't until Earl Warren, the decidely activist asshole on the SCOTUS decided it needed to be one in 1964.

This is almost scary.

You are, of course, correct

It was that activist asshole judge Earl Warren who stepped in and made sure blacks in this country had equal access to the polls.

What ?

No rebuttal showing that it was a founding principle.

Only a deflection ?

C'mon.....you're better.....well, on second thought, you aren't.

 

[konradv]

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"

The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.

Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ". They weren't gods. They were human and made mistakes like anyone else. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".

 

[Listening]

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"

The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.

Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ". They weren't gods. They were human and made mistakes like anyone else. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".

100% agreed.

It should be repealed based on merit and right now Harry Ried and Co. are the single greatest example of why something else should be in it's place.

No, there is no guarantee. But recent history tells us that the class of 100 baboons we have in there now isn't going to get any better.

There is every reason in the world to do it based on our current situation.

 

[konradv]

The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.

Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ". They weren't gods. They were human and made mistakes like anyone else. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".

100% agreed.

It should be repealed based on merit and right now Harry Ried and Co. are the single greatest example of why something else should be in it's place.

No, there is no guarantee. But recent history tells us that the class of 100 baboons we have in there now isn't going to get any better.

There is every reason in the world to do it based on our current situation.

Would it really sove the problem though? Why would Senators chosen by legislatures be any less corrupt than those elected? The problem isn't the method of chossing them, but how we fund campaigns. Changing back would have zero effect on the House. SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS.

 

[Oddball]

I am a member of that mob we like to call "We the People"

The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.

Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ". They weren't gods. They were human and made mistakes like anyone else. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".

Strawman....Nobody said the framers were perfect, nor the Constitution a holy writ.

The best evidence that they were right is that lunkheads like you keep trying to distract from the historical evidence for why the legislative structure of the republic was set up the way it was, by creating strawmen, invoking moral equivalence, false dichotomies and other glaring fallacious arguments.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House....

It isn't subject to gerrymandering.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.

Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ". They weren't gods. They were human and made mistakes like anyone else. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".

Strawman....Nobody said the framers were perfect, nor the Constitution a holy writ.

The best evidence that they were right is that lunkheads like you keep trying to distract from the historical evidence for why the legislative structure of the republic was set up the way it was, by creating strawmen, invoking moral equivalence, false dichotomies and other glaring fallacious arguments.

In other words, as usual, Odd is getting his ass handed to him. In no way, shape, or form by handing the Senate back to wealth and property would make governance in America any better.

The fact is that Odd does not like the fact we are equal before the law, that wealth and property convey no advantage theoretically, so he can go fart for all worth he is given his arguments here.

 

[rightwinger]

The men who penned those words went to great lengths to separate and devolve powers as much as possible, rather than have a homogenous centralized mob rule....A Senate beholden to the state political bodies was part of this separation and devolvement.

Just because they wrote it doesn't make it "holy writ". They weren't gods. They were human and made mistakes like anyone else. I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than "because they said so".

Strawman....Nobody said the framers were perfect, nor the Constitution a holy writ.

The best evidence that they were right is that lunkheads like you keep trying to distract from the historical evidence for why the legislative structure of the republic was set up the way it was, by creating strawmen, invoking moral equivalence, false dichotomies and other glaring fallacious arguments.

The Republic was set up the way it was. As we progressed as a Republic we found that certain aspects were far from perfect. One of those was how we selected Senators. We are much better off as a country in the years since we decided to directly elect Senators

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Founders created a defect in the original selection of the Senate. That was changed with the 17th. America is much better off.

 

[Listening]

The Founders created a defect in the original selection of the Senate. That was changed with the 17th. America is much better off.

In the end it is all a matter of opinion.

There is no meter you can put on this to determine which is better or worse.

The case you can make is that the 17th came about because of issues with the senate.

Given the herd of assholes we have on the hill now, you can make a case for going back.

It just depends on how hard conservatives want to work to get powers back into the hands of the senate.

Such absoute claims by you and RightWingNut are meaningless.

 

[Peach]

The Founders created a defect in the original selection of the Senate. That was changed with the 17th. America is much better off.

At least Senators are not subject to the approval of STATE legislators, that could really be a "flame fest".