Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Polk]

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.

My objection to the Senate is purely an ethical matter. I don't need it to solve anything to be the right course of action.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The problem with the Senate is not constitutional or structural.

It is greed, and We the People don't send them to jail, is the problem.

 

[Oddball]

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.

The liberals of the 18th century are today's libertarians, not the socialist "liberals" or soft socialist neocons largely populating the DNC and GOP, respectively, today.

Big difference.

 

[Tsalagi]

The liberals of the 18th century are today's libertarians, not the socialist "liberals" or soft socialist neocons largely populating the DNC and GOP, respectively, today.
Big difference.

Not if you use 1780s definitions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The liberals of the 18th century are today's libertarians, not the socialist "liberals" or soft socialist neocons largely populating the DNC and GOP, respectively, today. Big difference.

Nope. The libertarians today are merely the flip side of communism: each united by a desire to control the masses, one by a "society of equals" and the other by cadres.

The men of the Enlightenment, whether British or American, would despise such individuals if they had been alive in that day.

 

[JDzBrain]

First, and let's just get this out of the way. I SERIOUSLY doubt most of liberal constitutional experts posting on this subject are any more of an expert than the so called constitutional lawyer setting in the White House. I suspect you've never actually bothered to READ the damn document. So...I'll post the part you're arguing about to save ya the trouble.

Article I--Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

Paragraph 1, All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.


MAY propose Amendments!

Legislation IS to originate in the House...PERIOD!

Then why haven't any of the bills passed by the HoR since the repubs took over not seen the light of day?...Care to 'splain that one away?

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.

Uh...before you go around posting stuff with the liberal bent...you MIGHT want to make sure what the circumstance were. Look at the legislation they voted on. It bore NO resemblance to the bill that came out of the House!

False. While the Speaker of the House has supreme control over the calendar, the Senate doesn't function in the same manner.

False! If Dirty Harry doesn't allow a bill on the docket...it DON'T GET VOTED ON!

For evidence, see your last post I quoted. The house has passed SIX bills on the budget and NOT ONE was brought up for a vote in the Senate. They have passed more than THIRTY bills related to employment and NOT ONE has reached the floor of the Senate.

So that is just total BULL!

The Senate is BROKEN. The 17th is the reason...and it has GOT to go!

 

[BakshisMouse]

Before the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted, the elections of United States Senators were often decided by whoever donated the most money to the state legislature.

What do you suppose would be the effect of repealing it today?

 

[Oddball]

Before the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted, the elections of United States Senators were often decided by whoever donated the most money to the state legislature.

What do you suppose would be the effect of repealing it today?

Then we rid ourselves of know-nothing hacks like Chuck Schumer, detached fossils like McCain and Byrd, and and outright criminals like Dianne Frankenstein.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Before the Seventeenth Amendment was enacted, the elections of United States Senators were often decided by whoever donated the most money to the state legislature.

What do you suppose would be the effect of repealing it today?

Then we rid ourselves of know-nothing hacks like Chuck Schumer, detached fossils like McCain and Byrd, and and outright criminals like Dianne Frankenstein.

That still doesn't address the problem of corruption at the state government level.

 

[Oddball]

What...They're not corrupt as hell right now?

The level of corruption follows the amount of power those creeps amass, not how they manage to attain the office.

 

[BakshisMouse]

What...They're not corrupt as hell right now?

The level of corruption follows the amount of power those creeps amass, not how they manage to attain the office.

Even if we get rid of all the corrupt Senators in Washington right now, (probably all 100 of them) how will we address corruption at the state level?

 

[Oddball]

Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.

 

[BakshisMouse]

First, and let's just get this out of the way. I SERIOUSLY doubt most of liberal constitutional experts posting on this subject are any more of an expert than the so called constitutional lawyer setting in the White House. I suspect you've never actually bothered to READ the damn document. So...I'll post the part you're arguing about to save ya the trouble.

Article I--Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

Paragraph 1, All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

The Constitution only restricts legislation relating to taxes from originating in the house. Where in that document is it forbidden for the Senate to originate any other type of legislation?

 

[BakshisMouse]

Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.

Would you please still address how citizens should address corruption at the state level in the hypothetical situation that the 17th amendment is repealed?

 

[BakshisMouse]

Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.

Would you please still address how citizens should address corruption at the state level in the hypothetical situation that the 17th amendment is repealed?

You do realize that the answer to that question is independent of the original reason to enact the 17th amendment, right?

 

[Oddball]

Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.

Would you please still address how citizens should address corruption at the state level in the hypothetical situation that the 17th amendment is repealed?

Like I said, that's a total red herring.

Corruption results from the amount of power that the politicians have, not in how they end up with the position.

You want politicians to not be bought and sold, take away what they're selling.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.

Would you please still address how citizens should address corruption at the state level in the hypothetical situation that the 17th amendment is repealed?

You do realize that the answer to that question is independent of the original reason to enact the 17th amendment, right?

^^^^
Still pertinent.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Red herring....If you believe that the 17th Amendment was passed to address corruption at the state level, I have some seaside property in Arizona I want to sell you.

Would you please still address how citizens should address corruption at the state level in the hypothetical situation that the 17th amendment is repealed?

Like I said, that's a total red herring.

Corruption results from the amount of power that the politicians have, not in how they end up with the position.

You want politicians to not be bought and sold, take away what they're selling.

That's the closest you've come to answering the question I pose, and it still makes no sense. Should we take away money from wealthy people so that they cannot bribe politicians?

 

[Oddball]

What makes no sense is your apparent supposition that corruption of popularly elected politicians is any better a deal than that of those appointed by state legislatures.

 

[BakshisMouse]

What makes no sense is your apparent supposition that corruption of popularly elected politicians is any better a deal than those appointed by state legislatures.

Why is it so important that state legislatures get to appoint Senators? Since when do we care about the rights our state governments have to representation?

Seriously, why are the rights of the state government more sacrosanct than those of the federal government?