Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Tsalagi]

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!

Pretty, but the Federalist Papers aren't the Constitution ratified by the Congress assembled. Neither was the Wealth of Nations, De l'Esprit des Lois, or The Republic. Ergo, it has little bearing.

 

[BakshisMouse]

Pretty, but the Federalist Papers aren't the Constitution ratified by the Congress assembled. Neither was the Wealth of Nations, De l'Esprit des Lois, or The Republic. Ergo, it has little bearing.

Exactly my fucking point!

 

[Annie]

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!

Pretty, but the Federalist Papers aren't the Constitution ratified by the Congress assembled. Neither was the Wealth of Nations, De l'Esprit des Lois, or The Republic. Ergo, it has little bearing.

No, they are not. However they do directly tell us, in first person what the thinking of the framers was at their time. Lots of lessons, for those willing to be schooled.

 

[BakshisMouse]

No, they are not. However they do directly tell us, in first person what the thinking of the framers was at their time. Lots of lessons, for those willing to be schooled.

They are more lessons in history than they are lessons in how to form Constitutions for the 21st century, though.

"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

 

[MuadDib]

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.

That would be a repeal of the Constitution. Are you sure you want that?

 

[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.

That would be a repeal of the Constitution. Are you sure you want that?

I'm not saying that's what I what. I'm only saying it's hypothetically possible for such an amendment to be passed.

 

[MuadDib]

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!

Pretty, but the Federalist Papers aren't the Constitution ratified by the Congress assembled. Neither was the Wealth of Nations, De l'Esprit des Lois, or The Republic. Ergo, it has little bearing.

It has a great deal of bearing. The Federalist essays were the very arguments by the advocates of the Constitution, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, as to why it should be adopted and ratified. Madison wrote most of them and as the author of much of the Constitution, you get the details behind what he and the other Founders were thinking.

You can't understand the Constitution or your government without reading them.

If more people had read them today, then they would have read #62 where Madison said, "It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"

Obama, Congress, and the Supreme Court wouldn't have wasted so much time and our money on Obamacare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

What a lame comment. The argument is that the 17th Amendment should be amended and NO ONE has give a critical unbiased factual case for it. Try that, please.

 

[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.

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.

Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You describe your intellectual process well, OddOne.

We are waiting for a reasonable critical support of the OP. There has not been one yet.

 

[Polk]

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.

That's a huge motivation. Go back and look at documents from the time.

 

[Polk]

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?

The better question is why the "rights" of state government are more sacrosanct than those of the people.

 

[Polk]

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?

I think you're mixing up the Senate the House Banking Committee, which sees it's purpose as "to serve the banks".

 

[Polk]

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.

Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?

Except that the federal government doesn't take any money from the states to start with, because the money doesn't belong to the state. I do find it very interesting that a so-called libertarian sees money as an endowment of the state though.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?

Except that the federal government doesn't take any money from the states to start with, because the money doesn't belong to the state. I do find it very interesting that a so-called libertarian sees money as an endowment of the state though.

Apportioned federal taxes are collected by the states.....That's what "apportionment" means.

In any case, the feds still have no money of their own to "give" to the states to plug their budget holes.

 

[del]

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.

if only they'd rearranged the deck chairs on the titanic....

 

[del]

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.

That would be a repeal of the Constitution. Are you sure you want that?

you're the one that asked for it, asshat

fail

 

[del]

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.

Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?

let me know when you find a state legislature that let a lack of available funds stop them from spending.

 

[Polk]

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.

Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?

let me know when you find a state legislature that let a lack of available funds stop them from spending.

All of them except one (Vermont, I think) must have balanced budgets.

 

[Oddball]

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.

Highly unlikely, since the states know that the feds don't have any money that they didn't first take from them in the first place.

You really haven't thought any of this through, have you?

let me know when you find a state legislature that let a lack of available funds stop them from spending.

Just because the feds bailed out the states that overspent and over promised doesn't change the fact the gubmint has no money of its own...Nor does it change the fact that the states can't print up more money like the feds can.