Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Avatar4321]

Get rid of the Senate, altogether.

Really..why is it needed?

To give the States a voice and to allow the States to check the Federal Government to keep them from usurping power they didn't have.

You do realize that our Founders set up our government the way it was for very specific reasons, don't you?

As a mature citizen, don't you think it's your responsibility to find out what those reasons are?

 

[del]

yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.

only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.

 

[MuadDib]

yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.

only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.

Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.

The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.

 

[del]

yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.

only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.

Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.

The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

 

[Oddball]

yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.

only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.

Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.

The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

How do mere years change the overall concept?

 

[Avatar4321]

yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.

only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.

Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.

The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

I dont see how time changes the necessity for checks and balances.

And considering they still appoint judges....

 

[JDzBrain]

yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.

only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.

I HOPE you are kidding Del, cause if ya ain't...that IS the DUMBest fuckin' thing I've ever seen expressed publicly.

While I agree that the quality of state legislators had degraded over time. I would remind ya that the same bunch of dumbasses that have been voting them into office, have voted a community organizer who has never held a public job in his entire life to be president of this country!

That is what I'm talking about. The problem is NOT the legislators. It's the fact that the 17th amendment was the biggest voter suppression scheme ever inflicted on this country and it was done by progressives who convinced an uninformed electorate that it enhanced democracy...even though we DON'T HAVE A DEMOCRACY!

In reality, it was a simple plan to keep voter turnout low in the off years so that special interest...such as the supporters of a progressive agenda....could organize turn out the vote groups and skew the results in their favor.

If you want to know if there was some agenda besides the best interest of America involved in the amending of our Constitution...just look at the year it was voted on and see if it was the year of a national election or an off year.

By the way, Article V of the Constituion is the part about amending it. The last phrase contains something that is EXTREMELY telling of what the founders thought the roll of the Senate was.

"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."

Just for the half whits out there who believe men with names like Washington, Madison, Jefferson and Franklin are idiots...I'll explain the part that's bolded in that phrase. "and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." It says no STATE can be deprived of it's equal Suffrage...equal VOTE...in the senate. Not that no Senators can be denied their vote, no STATE can be denied their vote. Senators were viewed as the STATE'S voice in Washington and each STATE had an equal voice....2 Senators.

Now had they intended for the Senate to be the same as the House of Representatives, don't you think that just MAYBE the guys who were smart enough to establish an entirely new form of government and the greatest country in the history of man using 4500 words...less words than are on this page of this thread...that they just MIGHT have realized they mentioned the Senate and not the House in that Article?

NOTHING in the Constitution was by accident. It says what it means and means what is says and there ain't been 2 elected officials since the ratification of the Constitution who were smart enough to write a single amendment...little on 17 more!

Can you say anchor babies? Freakin' morons!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.

The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

How do mere years change the overall concept?

Concepts are human constructs and humans change. What a concept means -- it' interpretations and meanings, change. Need examples? Try the concept of liberalism

 

[MuadDib]

Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.

The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

How do mere years change the overall concept?

The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.

 

[JDzBrain]

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

How do mere years change the overall concept?

The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.

Exactly and your state's interests are determined by who you elect as your state representative to the sate legislature. THAT...is what was lost by the passing of the 17th amendment. It decoupled the state's interest from state's representation in Congress!

By the way, concepts do NOT change with time. Perceptions of it may change, but once an idea is conceived...it is out there FOREVER!

 

[del]

Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.

The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

I dont see how time changes the necessity for checks and balances.

And considering they still appoint judges....

maybe the state legislature appoints judges where you're from, but not here, and thank god for little favors.

and feel free to explain how appointed senators are more of a check and balance than elected ones.

i'll wait

 

[del]

Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.

The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

How do mere years change the overall concept?

well maybe 220 years ago state legislatures weren't filled with the kind of human refuse that they are now, and maybe it wasn't a good idea to begin with.

if they thought they had everything right, they wouldn't have set up a procedure to amend it, would they?

these are not terrifically complicated *concepts*

 

[JDzBrain]

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

I dont see how time changes the necessity for checks and balances.

And considering they still appoint judges....

maybe the state legislature appoints judges where you're from, but not here, and thank god for little favors.

and feel free to explain how appointed senators are more of a check and balance than elected ones.

i'll wait

Uh...senators were NOT appointed....although they could have been since the manner of their choosing was left up to the STATE Legislature (the people's representatives) in the state they represent! They were almost exclusively nominated and ELECTED by vote in the state legislatures in their home state. But they could have been appointed by a committee within the legislatures of their home state...OR any number of other ways.

As to HOW they are more of a check...you apparently didn't read my first post. If they are elected in a general election...they are beholden to the people who FUND and support their elections. THAT can be anyone from anywhere. If they are sent by the legislators of their state...they are beholden to those who sent them who are in turn responsible to US...we the people for the votes of the Senators they send to Washington to represent us.

Which also means WE are accountable for both of those groups and provided a huge incentive to get out and vote for our state representative since they would have a hand in choosing our Senator in Washington!

There was and ABSOLUTE logic behind why the founders set it up that way...and it was a mistake to change it. It has ABSOLUTELY led to the insanity we have in congress right now. And given that at least 38 states...that would be 72 senators are red states right now....Obamacare would NEVER HAVE SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY had the government worked the way it was suppose to!

THAT is what scares the HELL out of progressives about this whole discussion!

 

[JDzBrain]

well maybe 220 years ago state legislatures weren't filled with the kind of human refuse that they are now, and maybe it wasn't a good idea to begin with.

if they thought they had everything right, they wouldn't have set up a procedure to amend it, would they?

these are not terrifically complicated *concepts*

Have you read the first 10 amendments? The amendment process was put in place so that RIGHTS could be further defined or protected...IF NECESSARY.

It was NOT intended to be used to dismantle the original Constitution!

It was intended as an addition process...NOT a subtraction process.

 

[del]

well maybe 220 years ago state legislatures weren't filled with the kind of human refuse that they are now, and maybe it wasn't a good idea to begin with.

if they thought they had everything right, they wouldn't have set up a procedure to amend it, would they?

these are not terrifically complicated *concepts*

Have you read the first 10 amendments? The amendment process was put in place so that RIGHTS could be further defined or protected...IF NECESSARY.

It was NOT intended to be used to dismantle the original Constitution!

It was intended as an addition process...NOT a subtraction process.

amend·ment noun \ə-ˈmen(d)-mənt\

Definition of AMENDMENT

1
: the act of amending : correction
2
: a material (as compost or sand) that aids plant growth indirectly by improving the condition of the soil
3
a : the process of amending by parliamentary or constitutional procedure
b : an alteration proposed or effected by this process <a constitutional amendment>

amend verb \&#601;-&#712;mend\
transitive verb
1
: to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
2
a : to change or modify for the better : improve <amend the situation>
b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend a constitution>
intransitive verb
: to reform oneself
— amend·able \-&#712;men-d&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective
— amend·er noun

words have meanings, skippy, no matter how much you don't like it.

 

[MuadDib]

well maybe 220 years ago state legislatures weren't filled with the kind of human refuse that they are now, and maybe it wasn't a good idea to begin with.

if they thought they had everything right, they wouldn't have set up a procedure to amend it, would they?

these are not terrifically complicated *concepts*

Have you read the first 10 amendments? The amendment process was put in place so that RIGHTS could be further defined or protected...IF NECESSARY.

It was NOT intended to be used to dismantle the original Constitution!

It was intended as an addition process...NOT a subtraction process.

amend·ment noun \&#601;-&#712;men(d)-m&#601;nt\

Definition of AMENDMENT

1
: the act of amending : correction
2
: a material (as compost or sand) that aids plant growth indirectly by improving the condition of the soil
3
a : the process of amending by parliamentary or constitutional procedure
b : an alteration proposed or effected by this process <a constitutional amendment>

amend verb \&#601;-&#712;mend\
transitive verb
1
: to put right; especially : to make emendations in (as a text)
2
a : to change or modify for the better : improve <amend the situation>
b : to alter especially in phraseology; especially : to alter formally by modification, deletion, or addition <amend a constitution>
intransitive verb
: to reform oneself
— amend·able \-&#712;men-d&#601;-b&#601;l\ adjective
— amend·er noun

words have meanings, skippy, no matter how much you don't like it.

Then you'd better read what JDz said because he is correct. The amendment process was never intended to change the basic structure of the Federal government. Freeing slaves? Yes. Women's suffrage? Yes. Defining citizenship? Yes, even though they did a horrible job of it. And that abomination of Prohibition should never have been a constitutional amendment.

 

[Oddball]

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

I dont see how time changes the necessity for checks and balances.

And considering they still appoint judges....

maybe the state legislature appoints judges where you're from, but not here, and thank god for little favors.

and feel free to explain how appointed senators are more of a check and balance than elected ones.

i'll wait

Because Senators then have to answer to the people you elected at a state level as to why they rubber stamp the stupid shit that the federal HoR passes....This tends to keep people engaged at the state and local levels, rather than just strolling into the polls every few years acting like they've done anything of substance.

Also, since federal taxes were apportioned to the states for collection (and some of them still are), it then fell upon state agencies to collect their share of the federal tax bill....If the federal Seante rubber stamped a tax increase or regulatory burden, they'd have some 'splaining to do rather than just playing along with the party and running for re-re-re-re-re-re-election again.

What is it about making Senators a basically elected imperial class that is attractive to you?

 

[Oddball]

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

How do mere years change the overall concept?

well maybe 220 years ago state legislatures weren't filled with the kind of human refuse that they are now, and maybe it wasn't a good idea to begin with.

if they thought they had everything right, they wouldn't have set up a procedure to amend it, would they?

these are not terrifically complicated *concepts*

You think that all the changes to the original republic and the halls of congress being filled with human refuse are unrelated?

Please see: Why the Worst Get on Top: http://jim.com/hayek.htm

 

[The T]

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

How do mere years change the overall concept?

The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.

And the progressives with Wilson fucked it up by DESIGN.

 

[MuadDib]

How do mere years change the overall concept?

The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.

And the progressives with Wilson fucked it up by DESIGN.

And now we have have hacks like Harry Reid instead of true statesmen. The senators pre-1910 were statesmen. They were known by the people and by the legislatures, and represented the interests and wishes of their respective states.