Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Oddball]

So, you're admitting total ignorance of the idea of federalism and dual sovereignty....Now we're getting somewhere.

The reason has to do with apportionment of direct federal taxes, which are left to the state agencies to collect and forward to the feds.....Senators appointed by the state legislatures meant that the states had a say in federal budgets.

Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, no state has had any say in the ever expanding bloat of federal taxation and spending.

 

[BakshisMouse]

So, you're admitting total ignorance of the idea of federalism and dual sovereignty....Now we're getting somewhere.

The reason has to do with apportionment of direct federal taxes, which are left to the state agencies to collect and forward to the feds.....Senators appointed by the state legislatures meant that the states had a say in federal budgets.

Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, no state has had any say in the ever expanding bloat of federal taxation and spending.

Now that I think about it, I am truly warming to the idea of repealing the 17th amendment.

This doesn't even have to be a left/right issue. Having Senators appointed by State Legislatures might make it easier to pass bills that give grants to states to fill budget shortfalls. That's a liberal/Democrat pet issue, if you don't know.

I still don't think it will be on the top of my "give a care" list, though.

 

[freedombecki]

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?

Bakshis Mouse, please read the Federalist Papers before you take on the erudite Mr. Oddball again. I see you're having difficulty understanding the national discussion that went on about state and federal powers and why the 17th Amendment went against states instead of for states as the founders deliberately set up as separate, but equal partners in the fed.

The 17th Amendment as it reads, is being used to push the nation closer and closer to mob justice. That was an unintended consequence that had been thoroughly examined in the preceding century and forgotten by do-gooders trying to fix an entirely different problem--vice.

Here's a link to the Federalist Papers for your edification. Enjoy!

 

[BakshisMouse]

Damn. That firefox/vbulletin issue screwed me again.

 

[freedombecki]

Tell a moderator. You could start with Mr. Oddball, who I understand is one.

And I am glad to hear you are warming to the idea of repealing the 17th Dinosaur, I mean, Amendment.

 

[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?

Bakshis Mouse, please read the Federalist Papers before you take on the erudite Mr. Oddball again. I see you're having difficulty understanding the national discussion that went on about state and federal powers and why the 17th Amendment went against states instead of for states as the founders deliberately set up as separate, but equal partners in the fed.

The 17th Amendment as it reads, is being used to push the nation closer and closer to mob justice. That was an unintended consequence that had been thoroughly examined in the preceding century and forgotten by do-gooders trying to fix an entirely different problem--vice.

Here's a link to the Federalist Papers for your edification. Enjoy!

As wise as the founding father's were, my favorite quote from one of them is this:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

source

We must have logical reasons for the rules we have. Despite what you might think, "They did it in the 18th century, so we should do the same now" is not really a logical reason.

Remember, the Constitution can be amended to say pretty much anything. It's even more important to remember that the Constitution is the law, and not the Federalist Papers.

As for the argument that popular vote is undesirable: I disagree. I don't have to concur with Alexander Hamilton to be a proper American. However, I did give one reason why popular vote of Senators might be a bad idea.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Tell a moderator. You could start with Mr. Oddball, who I understand is one.

And I am glad to hear you are warming to the idea of repealing the 17th Dinosaur, I mean, Amendment.

I just made a ton of duplicate posts. To be honest, some of them had slight revisions. I deleted them myself.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fact: no one has given a prima facie case with supporting critical evidence that the 17th needs to be amended.

Fact: a lot of libertarian stupidity about budgets and House duties is rampant in this thread.

 

[MuadDib]

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?

Bakshis Mouse, please read the Federalist Papers before you take on the erudite Mr. Oddball again. I see you're having difficulty understanding the national discussion that went on about state and federal powers and why the 17th Amendment went against states instead of for states as the founders deliberately set up as separate, but equal partners in the fed.

The 17th Amendment as it reads, is being used to push the nation closer and closer to mob justice. That was an unintended consequence that had been thoroughly examined in the preceding century and forgotten by do-gooders trying to fix an entirely different problem--vice.

Here's a link to the Federalist Papers for your edification. Enjoy!

As wise as the founding father's were, my favorite quote from one of them is this:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

source

We must have logical reasons for the rules we have. Despite what you might think, "They did it in the 18th century, so we should do the same now" is not really a logical reason.

Remember, the Constitution can be amended to say pretty much anything. It's even more important to remember that the Constitution is the law, and not the Federalist Papers.

As for the argument that popular vote is undesirable: I disagree. I don't have to concur with Alexander Hamilton to be a proper American. However, I did give one reason why popular vote of Senators might be a bad idea.

Would you say that the Constitution can be amended to eliminate the executive, legislative, or judicial branches?

 

[BakshisMouse]

Would you say that the Constitution can be amended to eliminate the executive, legislative, or judicial branches?

Hypothetically, there could be an amendment that abolishes all governments inside the United States, leaving the people to anarchy.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Fact: no one has given a prima facie case with supporting critical evidence that the 17th needs to be amended.

Fact: a lot of libertarian stupidity about budgets and House duties is rampant in this thread.

From a purely utilitarian point of view, such repeal could be used to make it easier for states to get grants from the government so that they can fill budget shortfalls. I think that would ease a lot of suffering.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fact: no one has given a prima facie case with supporting critical evidence that the 17th needs to be amended.

Fact: a lot of libertarian stupidity about budgets and House duties is rampant in this thread.

From a purely utilitarian point of view, such repeal could be used to make it easier for states to get grants from the government so that they can fill budget shortfalls. I think that would ease a lot of suffering.

Somehow that is not Oddball's concern, I think.

 

[freedombecki]

Would you say that the Constitution can be amended to eliminate the executive, legislative, or judicial branches?

Hypothetically, there could be an amendment that abolishes all governments inside the United States, leaving the people to anarchy.

Thank you for making the case for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

The present Senate is in anarchy because popularists with no ties to their state legislatures are acting as though they are the make-a-wish-foundation for every entity or person who donated to Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.

The Republican House is simply not cooperating, nor should they. It's preposterous to reward Barrack's supporters who take millions and go bankrupt in less than 2 years at taxpayer expense.

I've had enough, haven't you?

 

[BakshisMouse]

Fact: no one has given a prima facie case with supporting critical evidence that the 17th needs to be amended.

Fact: a lot of libertarian stupidity about budgets and House duties is rampant in this thread.

From a purely utilitarian point of view, such repeal could be used to make it easier for states to get grants from the government so that they can fill budget shortfalls. I think that would ease a lot of suffering.

Somehow that is not Oddball's concern, I think.

It is, however, a counterexample to the bolded.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Would you say that the Constitution can be amended to eliminate the executive, legislative, or judicial branches?

Hypothetically, there could be an amendment that abolishes all governments inside the United States, leaving the people to anarchy.

Thank you for making the case for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

The present Senate is in anarchy because popularists with no ties to their state legislatures are acting as though they are the make-a-wish-foundation for every entity or person who donated to Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.

I've had enough, haven't you?

Why can't the same be said of the House? Is that only because it is under a Republican majority?

 

[freedombecki]

Hypothetically, there could be an amendment that abolishes all governments inside the United States, leaving the people to anarchy.

Thank you for making the case for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

The present Senate is in anarchy because popularists with no ties to their state legislatures are acting as though they are the make-a-wish-foundation for every entity or person who donated to Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.

I've had enough, haven't you?

Why can't the same be said of the House? Is that only because it is under a Republican majority?

First things first, Bakshish. PLZ go read the Federalist Papers first. THX.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Thank you for making the case for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

The present Senate is in anarchy because popularists with no ties to their state legislatures are acting as though they are the make-a-wish-foundation for every entity or person who donated to Barack Obama's Presidential Campaign.

I've had enough, haven't you?

Why can't the same be said of the House? Is that only because it is under a Republican majority?

First things first, Bakshish. PLZ go read the Federalist Papers first. THX.

I am so sorry, but my apathy is getting in the way.

On an unrelated note, would you please respond to the following:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

source

 

[freedombecki]

Why can't the same be said of the House? Is that only because it is under a Republican majority?

First things first, Bakshish. PLZ go read the Federalist Papers first. THX.

I am so sorry, but my apathy is getting in the way.

On an unrelated note, would you please respond to the following:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

source

Not until you can at least reach Mr. Oddball's ankles to do your biting. That will be accomplished when you read from start to finish the link you were given preceding your demands. Meanwhile, stay under the porch until you are fit to run with the big doggies, sweetie.

 

[BakshisMouse]

First things first, Bakshish. PLZ go read the Federalist Papers first. THX.

I am so sorry, but my apathy is getting in the way.

On an unrelated note, would you please respond to the following:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

source

Not until you can at least reach Mr. Oddball's ankles to do your biting. That will be accomplished when you read from start to finish the link you were given preceding your demands. Meanwhile, stay under the porch until you are fit to run with the big doggies, sweetie.

But Ma'am, how can I prove that I've read the Federalist Papers sufficiently? Shall I write a book report?

 

[del]

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.

what color is the sky on your home planet?