Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[freedombecki]

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!

The Democrat precinct chairmen already took power away from the voters of Minnesota, who elected Norm Coleman as Senator, but the precinct chairmen decided to overthrow the vote with "found" votes they pulled out of a hat, all the while squealing "Republicans want to make sure your vote doesn't count" when in fact, the Democrats didn't want the voters' votes to count, so they added their own extra votes and foisted that on the public. What a bunch of slimey criminals the Democrat precinct chairmen are.

 

[Listening]

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.

If you haven't checked lately, the senate is mostly millionaires. In the early 1990's it seemed that 94 of our senators were millionaires. So the wealthy already have it.

His arguments have been quite sound. It is your rebuttals that have been pretty fecal in nature. As has already been demonstrated, their positions won't change. All that would change is how they are selected. And given the nature of how we select things like the SCOTUS (they don't get elected, but are appointed by elected reps...and nobody is calling for their election), there is every reason to consider this as an alternative.

 

[Oddball]

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

As arguable and completely subjective an opinion as you're going to find.

 

[Listening]

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".

And how great would it be to see this kind of process take place ? I think it would be fantastic. My state senator and member of the state house are not wealthy at all (one is a para from a local school). There is nothing for them in appointing some rich fat cat.

 

[Oddball]

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"

There's a long history of corruption and graft of popularly elected Senators over the last 95 years....What's your point?

 

[rightwinger]

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

As arguable and completely subjective an opinion as you're going to find.

Maybe so...

But it is undeniable that we have evolved as a country since 1913. Women could not even vote in 1913. Electing Senators directly is more in line with how we now function as a country

 

[JakeStarkey]

The point is that Odd has not made his case that the 17th should be amended.

 

[Oddball]

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

As arguable and completely subjective an opinion as you're going to find.

Maybe so...

But it is undeniable that we have evolved as a country since 1913. Women could not even vote in 1913. Electing Senators directly is more in line with how we now function as a country

We also had a federal gubmint that only consumed a few percent of GDP, no ridiculous foreign interventionist wars, no direct taxes on incomes, a currency of substance, virtually no federal debt and a national economy that was the greatest success story in all of human history.....Compared to the total mess we have today in the District of Criminals, that devolution.

 

[Listening]

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"

There's a long history of corruption and graft of popularly elected Senators over the last 95 years....What's your point?

Not only that, but there is a good chance you need several million of your own to get into the club....even if you are honest.

BTW: Barbara BS's net worth has gone up significantly since she joined the senate. How much do they pay these clowns ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Blah blah blah . . . but nobody has given any definable, debatable, actionable reason to amend the 17th.

Their opinions are not facts.

 

[Listening]

Blah blah blah . . . but nobody has given any definable, debatable, actionable reason to amend the 17th.

Their opinions are not facts.

I think I already said that was what both sides have.

Of course, there were no "facts" at the time it was put in place. It was an effort to change something. How do you know if it worked ? You dont'.

The concept has been stated (so screw history or intent) that if we got senators appointed, we BELIEVE it would create more watchdogging for the states.

I don't think anyone has misrepresented that as a fact......

 

[Oddball]

Blah blah blah . . . but nobody has given any definable, debatable, actionable reason to amend the 17th.

Their opinions are not facts.

I think I already said that was what both sides have.

Of course, there were no "facts" at the time it was put in place. It was an effort to change something. How do you know if it worked ? You dont'.

The concept has been stated (so screw history or intent) that if we got senators appointed, we BELIEVE it would create more watchdogging for the states.

I don't think anyone has misrepresented that as a fact......

The only unverifiable and unfalsifiable opinions that count for anything are those offered up by leftists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Or by wannabee libertarians like OddSparky who apparently wants corrupt appointee Senators: strange guy, Odd.

 

[Oddball]

Yet another baseless and completely flaccid strawman argument.

You do seem to be pretty good at those.

 

[rightwinger]

As arguable and completely subjective an opinion as you're going to find.

Maybe so...

But it is undeniable that we have evolved as a country since 1913. Women could not even vote in 1913. Electing Senators directly is more in line with how we now function as a country

We also had a federal gubmint that only consumed a few percent of GDP, no ridiculous foreign interventionist wars, no direct taxes on incomes, a currency of substance, virtually no federal debt and a national economy that was the greatest success story in all of human history.....Compared to the total mess we have today in the District of Criminals, that devolution.

In the period since 1913, we have moved from a second rate power to the richest and strongest nation on earth. The people are more secure and have a superior standard of living. That is a result of a higher percentage of GDP.

Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet another baseless and completely flaccid strawman argument. You do seem to be pretty good at those.

Yes, you are good at that, Odd.

 

[rightwinger]

Our country is more inclusive than our founding fathers envisioned. While they made major strides for the common man they didn't trust him entirely

 

[Oddball]

Maybe so...

But it is undeniable that we have evolved as a country since 1913. Women could not even vote in 1913. Electing Senators directly is more in line with how we now function as a country

We also had a federal gubmint that only consumed a few percent of GDP, no ridiculous foreign interventionist wars, no direct taxes on incomes, a currency of substance, virtually no federal debt and a national economy that was the greatest success story in all of human history.....Compared to the total mess we have today in the District of Criminals, that devolution.

In the period since 1913, we have moved from a second rate power to the richest and strongest nation on earth. The people are more secure and have a superior standard of living. That is a result of a higher percentage of GDP.

Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it

We weren't a second rate power, Bubba....We were pretty much masters of the Western Hemisphere.

And America was already well on its way to being the most wealthy and strongest nation on Earth because of the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution, not because of anything that racist, tyrant thug Woodrow Wilson did.

 

[rightwinger]

We also had a federal gubmint that only consumed a few percent of GDP, no ridiculous foreign interventionist wars, no direct taxes on incomes, a currency of substance, virtually no federal debt and a national economy that was the greatest success story in all of human history.....Compared to the total mess we have today in the District of Criminals, that devolution.

In the period since 1913, we have moved from a second rate power to the richest and strongest nation on earth. The people are more secure and have a superior standard of living. That is a result of a higher percentage of GDP.

Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it

We weren't a second rate power, Bubba....We were pretty much masters of the Western Hemisphere.

And America was already well on its way to being the most wealthy and strongest nation on Earth because of the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution, not because of anything that racist, tyrant thug Woodrow Wilson did.

Meaning we were bigger than Canada and a bunch of Banana Republics

It was Wilson who put us on track to be a global player

 

[freedombecki]

In the period since 1913, we have moved from a second rate power to the richest and strongest nation on earth. The people are more secure and have a superior standard of living. That is a result of a higher percentage of GDP.

Like it or not, we now have a stronger central government and are better off for it

We weren't a second rate power, Bubba....We were pretty much masters of the Western Hemisphere.

And America was already well on its way to being the most wealthy and strongest nation on Earth because of the mechanization of the Industrial Revolution, not because of anything that racist, tyrant thug Woodrow Wilson did.

Meaning we were bigger than Canada and a bunch of Banana Republics

It was Wilson who put us on track to be a global player

<<<<gong!>>>> That would be Dwight Eisenhower, actually.