Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Polk]

Because Harry Reid doesn't have the balls to make the hard calls.

The Senate has already voted on, and rejected, the House's budget proposal.

Meanwhile, we haven't had a budget passed in 3 years, no balanced budget, no pay back of the crushing debt, $15 trillion in debt and rising, and continuing resolutions that don't address or fix the problem.

So, a pox on everyone's house, in that case? Since the Republicans haven't proposed any plan to balance the budget (Romney's plan leaves a deficit of around 800 billion a year, and the Ryan plan doesn't balance the budget until 30 years out (and even that's built on a lot of bullshit claims)).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, a pox on everyone's house, in that case? Since the Republicans haven't proposed any plan to balance the budget (Romney's plan leaves a deficit of around 800 billion a year, and the Ryan plan doesn't balance the budget until 30 years out (and even that's built on a lot of bullshit claims)).

The American people are trapped between two warring armies, both bent on only destroying the other at any cost, including that of the Republic.

 

[Oddball]

STFU, drive-by dickweed.

 

[Polk]

So, a pox on everyone's house, in that case? Since the Republicans haven't proposed any plan to balance the budget (Romney's plan leaves a deficit of around 800 billion a year, and the Ryan plan doesn't balance the budget until 30 years out (and even that's built on a lot of bullshit claims)).

The American people are trapped between two warring armies, both bent on only destroying the other at any cost, including that of the Republic.

That's the result of scarcity. As it becomes harder to expand the pie, expect even more fighting over how to divide the pie that's left.

 

[freedombecki]

We've created a bicameral federal mobocracy.

You couldn't be truer, Mr. Oddball.

It's too bad our elect lack cohesion to declare war on the national debt, and that it all gets left to conservatives who can't win elections with constant eleventh hour calumny against those with the best records of no spending in their respective state's legislative groups. It takes 6 months to disprove some allegations. By that time, the election is over and the liar is already spending his expense account as well as the national debt into the ground.

I'm not sure I'd want them to. Every time the Feds declare war on a social problem, they make a mess of it. They declared war on poverty and now we have more poor people who are dependent on a gubmint check and breaking the country's financial back. They declared war on drugs and took what was essentially a non-issue, and made a train wreck of it. Now we have more drugs, worse drugs, and worse drug related crime than ever.

Sorry, I don't support spending every cent in sight of somebody else's money. Declaring war on a debt is not the same as declaring war on poverty or drugs, both of which have emotional ties. Money, you either save or spend. If you spend too much, no vacation. If the government spends too much, it prints more and devalues money that those who saved theirs have.

I do support a war on debt to get it off the plate. It's a foul ball. It's a penalty box. And it's not something I care to leave to my sister's and brother's grandchildren.

I have a better life as an adult than as a child. I think America is the best place on earth to be. I just do, and I pray every night for those in our government who try to keep a lid on spending, who try to maintain a healthy business climate for families raising children and trying to own a piece of the American pie.

And I hope the post Obama Congress will repeal the 17th Amendment and call for more involvement of states in their choices for Senators.

Let today's unfriendly climate in the Senate be our charter for restoring the founder's plan of keeping states engaged in the Republic, and as Oddball pointed out, it's a mobocracy. I think this has led to this unbusinesslike climate in our Unite States government of a massive free-for-all in spending.

Let's chuck it and give Senators back to accounting to their state legislatures again.

And let's make sure they do not devolve to the problems they had that caused the 17th Amendment to be passed and tucked out of people's notice for years while states lost power.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, a pox on everyone's house, in that case? Since the Republicans haven't proposed any plan to balance the budget (Romney's plan leaves a deficit of around 800 billion a year, and the Ryan plan doesn't balance the budget until 30 years out (and even that's built on a lot of bullshit claims)).

The American people are trapped between two warring armies, both bent on only destroying the other at any cost, including that of the Republic.

That's the result of scarcity. As it becomes harder to expand the pie, expect even more fighting over how to divide the pie that's left.

Neither side has any idea as to what to do, and there’s actually nothing either side can do.

 

[Texanmike]

What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.

The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.

By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal one total debacle.

The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.

You are actually advocating for more corruption.

What leads you to believe that the federal government is any less corrupt than any other level of the government. The problem was that people did not watch the state governments, not that they are any more inherently corrupt than any other level of government.

How has the Senate being popularly elected increased the power of the voter? It has actually had the exact opposite effect. Now instead of having to face the voters every 2 years, a senator only has to face the voter ever six. On top of that there are some Senators who represent as many as 17 million people. If you don't want to repeal the 17th amendment then just abolish the senate.

Mike

 

[Texanmike]

If you want to solve the debt problem then there is one simple solution. Cut all government outlays by 30% across the board. Walk into each department head's office on monday and announce "You have 30% less to work with than you did friday. Have a good week".

You're not going to cut the debt by "debating what to cut, you're not going to cut the debt by making backroom deals... just cut it by a set percentage.

Mike

 

[Polk]

What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.

The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.

By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal one total debacle.

The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.

You are actually advocating for more corruption.

What leads you to believe that the federal government is any less corrupt than any other level of the government. The problem was that people did not watch the state governments, not that they are any more inherently corrupt than any other level of government.

How has the Senate being popularly elected increased the power of the voter? It has actually had the exact opposite effect. Now instead of having to face the voters every 2 years, a senator only has to face the voter ever six. On top of that there are some Senators who represent as many as 17 million people. If you don't want to repeal the 17th amendment then just abolish the senate.

Mike

How do you figure repealing the 17th Amendment would make senators face voters more often? Beyond the obvious (that they'll never face voters), once a senator is elected, they are in office for the full term. A change in the state legislature doesn't change that.

As for the population skew issue, that is an ethical problem in either scenario. I'm all for abolishing the Senate (or at the very least, changing the structure to make it more representative of the population).

 

[Polk]

If you want to solve the debt problem then there is one simple solution. Cut all government outlays by 30% across the board. Walk into each department head's office on monday and announce "You have 30% less to work with than you did friday. Have a good week".

You're not going to cut the debt by "debating what to cut, you're not going to cut the debt by making backroom deals... just cut it by a set percentage.

Mike

And when you do this, you'll have a horde of angry seniors sacking the Capitol demanding their Social Security checks and Medicare be paid in full. Oh, and you'd still have a 200 billion dollar deficit.

 

[Polk]

OK...Fine....It's taxing bills that are supposed to start in the HoR...My mistake.

Now, maybe you can 'splain why all of the proposed budget bills by Boiking haven't manged to even get any DEMOCRAT votes in the Senate.

That's some kind of republican obstructionism!

Turns out there's another reason: they've never actually voted on them. They've voted on bills introduced by the Republicans titled "The Obama Budget", where they just write down the topline numbers for every agency out of the budget request, then leave all the details blank.

House and Senate Unanimously Reject Obama Budgets — Or Do They? - ABC News

 

[JakeStarkey]

A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.. .

Then get a super majority and amend the Constitution.

 

[MuadDib]

You couldn't be truer, Mr. Oddball.

It's too bad our elect lack cohesion to declare war on the national debt, and that it all gets left to conservatives who can't win elections with constant eleventh hour calumny against those with the best records of no spending in their respective state's legislative groups. It takes 6 months to disprove some allegations. By that time, the election is over and the liar is already spending his expense account as well as the national debt into the ground.

I'm not sure I'd want them to. Every time the Feds declare war on a social problem, they make a mess of it. They declared war on poverty and now we have more poor people who are dependent on a gubmint check and breaking the country's financial back. They declared war on drugs and took what was essentially a non-issue, and made a train wreck of it. Now we have more drugs, worse drugs, and worse drug related crime than ever.

Sorry, I don't support spending every cent in sight of somebody else's money. Declaring war on a debt is not the same as declaring war on poverty or drugs, both of which have emotional ties. Money, you either save or spend. If you spend too much, no vacation. If the government spends too much, it prints more and devalues money that those who saved theirs have.

I do support a war on debt to get it off the plate. It's a foul ball. It's a penalty box. And it's not something I care to leave to my sister's and brother's grandchildren.

I have a better life as an adult than as a child. I think America is the best place on earth to be. I just do, and I pray every night for those in our government who try to keep a lid on spending, who try to maintain a healthy business climate for families raising children and trying to own a piece of the American pie.

And I hope the post Obama Congress will repeal the 17th Amendment and call for more involvement of states in their choices for Senators.

Let today's unfriendly climate in the Senate be our charter for restoring the founder's plan of keeping states engaged in the Republic, and as Oddball pointed out, it's a mobocracy. I think this has led to this unbusinesslike climate in our Unite States government of a massive free-for-all in spending.

Let's chuck it and give Senators back to accounting to their state legislatures again.

And let's make sure they do not devolve to the problems they had that caused the 17th Amendment to be passed and tucked out of people's notice for years while states lost power.

Oh, I agree with your sentiment. I'm just saying that the Feds have a bad track record when they declare "war" on something. They generally fuck it up and cutting the deficit and paying off the debt is something that is going to have to be done and done right.

 

[MuadDib]

The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.

You are actually advocating for more corruption.

What leads you to believe that the federal government is any less corrupt than any other level of the government. The problem was that people did not watch the state governments, not that they are any more inherently corrupt than any other level of government.

How has the Senate being popularly elected increased the power of the voter? It has actually had the exact opposite effect. Now instead of having to face the voters every 2 years, a senator only has to face the voter ever six. On top of that there are some Senators who represent as many as 17 million people. If you don't want to repeal the 17th amendment then just abolish the senate.

Mike

How do you figure repealing the 17th Amendment would make senators face voters more often? Beyond the obvious (that they'll never face voters), once a senator is elected, they are in office for the full term. A change in the state legislature doesn't change that.

As for the population skew issue, that is an ethical problem in either scenario. I'm all for abolishing the Senate (or at the very least, changing the structure to make it more representative of the population).

You're a damned fool if you think that abolishing the Senate is going to solve anything. The Senate serves as a check and balance on the power of the House.

The problem is that the 17th Amendment changed the nature of the Senate so that it does not function as it was designed or intended.

 

[Old Rocks]

A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.

According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Originally, US Senators were not elected by the people. They were appointed by the state legislatures. The House of Representatives were elected by the people to represent the interests of the people. The Senate was appointed by the state legislatures to represent the inerests of the states. That kept senators out of the political process.

That was changed 1910 by the progressives when they changed that with the 17th Amendment:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.

Hilarity ensues!

Sure, let's get it back to the state legislatures, bought and owned by people like the Koch Brothers. So all you Koch suckers can delight in living in an oligarchy.

 

[Old Rocks]

What leads you to believe that the federal government is any less corrupt than any other level of the government. The problem was that people did not watch the state governments, not that they are any more inherently corrupt than any other level of government.

How has the Senate being popularly elected increased the power of the voter? It has actually had the exact opposite effect. Now instead of having to face the voters every 2 years, a senator only has to face the voter ever six. On top of that there are some Senators who represent as many as 17 million people. If you don't want to repeal the 17th amendment then just abolish the senate.

Mike

How do you figure repealing the 17th Amendment would make senators face voters more often? Beyond the obvious (that they'll never face voters), once a senator is elected, they are in office for the full term. A change in the state legislature doesn't change that.

As for the population skew issue, that is an ethical problem in either scenario. I'm all for abolishing the Senate (or at the very least, changing the structure to make it more representative of the population).

You're a damned fool if you think that abolishing the Senate is going to solve anything. The Senate serves as a check and balance on the power of the House.

The problem is that the 17th Amendment changed the nature of the Senate so that it does not function as it was designed or intended.

The reason for the 17th Amendment was that the Senate was not functioning as it was intended. The very wealthy were buying Senate seats via the state legislatures. What broke that camels back was a senator from Montana who made it so obvious that the Senate was shamed into refusing to seat him.

 

[Tsalagi]

You're a damned fool if you think that abolishing the Senate is going to solve anything. The Senate serves as a check and balance on the power of the House.

The problem is that the 17th Amendment changed the nature of the Senate so that it does not function as it was designed or intended.

Just a small question. How WAS the Senate designed? What was really intended?
We had bee a colony with no voice, then wallowed for several years as a Confederation, then got our "Divinely inspired" Constitution.

What was the model? Were we able to examine past failures and successes? Could we tweak something and get it to work better? Where was this form of governance being operated?

What was REALLY intended? Were they that attuned to the crystal ball of needs 225 years in the future? Or were they simply wise for their generation, attempting to end the stalemate of the Confederation government, and willing to experiment with a new model? Only Gods could have made perfection. They were NOT Gods.

 

[freedombecki]

I'm not sure I'd want them to. Every time the Feds declare war on a social problem, they make a mess of it. They declared war on poverty and now we have more poor people who are dependent on a gubmint check and breaking the country's financial back. They declared war on drugs and took what was essentially a non-issue, and made a train wreck of it. Now we have more drugs, worse drugs, and worse drug related crime than ever.

Sorry, I don't support spending every cent in sight of somebody else's money. Declaring war on a debt is not the same as declaring war on poverty or drugs, both of which have emotional ties. Money, you either save or spend. If you spend too much, no vacation. If the government spends too much, it prints more and devalues money that those who saved theirs have.

I do support a war on debt to get it off the plate. It's a foul ball. It's a penalty box. And it's not something I care to leave to my sister's and brother's grandchildren.

I have a better life as an adult than as a child. I think America is the best place on earth to be. I just do, and I pray every night for those in our government who try to keep a lid on spending, who try to maintain a healthy business climate for families raising children and trying to own a piece of the American pie.

And I hope the post Obama Congress will repeal the 17th Amendment and call for more involvement of states in their choices for Senators.

Let today's unfriendly climate in the Senate be our charter for restoring the founder's plan of keeping states engaged in the Republic, and as Oddball pointed out, it's a mobocracy. I think this has led to this unbusinesslike climate in our Unite States government of a massive free-for-all in spending.

Let's chuck it and give Senators back to accounting to their state legislatures again.

And let's make sure they do not devolve to the problems they had that caused the 17th Amendment to be passed and tucked out of people's notice for years while states lost power.

Oh, I agree with your sentiment. I'm just saying that the Feds have a bad track record when they declare "war" on something. They generally fuck it up and cutting the deficit and paying off the debt is something that is going to have to be done and done right.

Oh. Thanks. I can appreciate that.

Maybe if we had regular Joes whose work in state legislatures satisfied their contemporaries as to being Senate material headed for the hallowed halls of the Hill rather than the Candidate wearing the best designer clothes with the best ad folks telling them what to do and how to react, i.e. public voter appeal, we'd have less ego and more reasonable men and women used to working hard, having final say over federal legislation, as Senators.

I'm fed up with the glam voter thing. People need to be Senators in the way that Supreme Court Justices are solemn and wise. That would eliminate Hollywood actors with big mouths and no brains from flashing smiles and having glamor photo ops rather than legislative accomplishments in their offerings in Washington. We need people who have good track and communication records in their state legislatures as Senators. The people need to see to it good people are elected into state legislatures, and let it become the Senate pool.

The 17th Amendment took that away, and we need to fix it.

 

[freedombecki]

You're a damned fool if you think that abolishing the Senate is going to solve anything. The Senate serves as a check and balance on the power of the House.

The problem is that the 17th Amendment changed the nature of the Senate so that it does not function as it was designed or intended.

Just a small question. How WAS the Senate designed? What was really intended?
We had bee a colony with no voice, then wallowed for several years as a Confederation, then got our "Divinely inspired" Constitution.

What was the model? Were we able to examine past failures and successes? Could we tweak something and get it to work better? Where was this form of governance being operated?

What was REALLY intended? Were they that attuned to the crystal ball of needs 225 years in the future? Or were they simply wise for their generation, attempting to end the stalemate of the Confederation government, and willing to experiment with a new model? Only Gods could have made perfection. They were NOT Gods.

Ever heard of mathematics being a system? Or are you taking the same stance as the Crown of England that the people on these shores were incapable of self-rule? I'd say the founders had it pretty nailed down, say what you will of their brass tacks intuitiveness that created a free society by employing a useful system of checks and balances of power.

 

[Tsalagi]

Ever heard of mathematics being a system? Or are you taking the same stance as the Crown of England that the people on these shores were incapable of self-rule? I'd say the founders had it pretty nailed down, say what you will of their brass tacks intuitiveness that created a free society by employing a useful system of checks and balances of power.

Imagine! The Crown and the Americans were the Conservatives. The patriots were the Liberals! Does that bring a shiver to your spinal column?
Whether King George and Mr. Pitt believed we would fail, we were still relying on seat of the pants governance. Mostly we got it right with just over 2 dozen Amendments. That's with no experience or data base.
Texas wrote their Constitution a hundred years later and there a dozen or so Amendments on the ballot every four years! And they had a century of precedents to go from! Of course that was back in the reign of Big Jim Hogg, father of Ima Hogg.