Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[del]

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.

they fund to their spending instead of spending to their funds.

it's all a shell game.

 

[Polk]

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.

Well, the federal government doesn't have any money of its own, but state governments do. At least, that was your position a few minutes ago.

 

[Polk]

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.

they fund to their spending instead of spending to their funds.

it's all a shell game.

I'd say there is something to be said for having to honestly account for how your spending money.

 

[del]

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.

and none of that changes if the 17th is repealed.

whoop de fucking doo

 

[freedombecki]

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.

and none of that changes if the 17th is repealed.

whoop de fucking doo

The benefit of repealing the amendment is to give the 50 State Legislatures an opportunity to stress state needs and goals to the Senator. Some state legislatures are comprised of people who are enthusiastic about serving the people who elected them, and they do all they can to get the best possible state-caring person in the Senate Seat that turns over every other term.

We need Senators who are fiscally responsible people, and I think it's just possible the people of other states realize that's key to this society--running government in a fiscally disciplined way.

It's as happy as having a debonaire emu around sometimes.

 

[Dr Grump]

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!

Because, ya know, if the states appointed the Senators there would be no politics involved, right?

I mean prior to 1910, Senators were apolitical, right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

and none of that changes if the 17th is repealed.

whoop de fucking doo

The benefit of repealing the amendment is to give the 50 State Legislatures an opportunity to stress state needs and goals to the Senator. Some state legislatures are comprised of people who are enthusiastic about serving the people who elected them, and they do all they can to get the best possible state-caring person in the Senate Seat that turns over every other term. We need Senators who are fiscally responsible people, and I think it's just possible the people of other states realize that's key to this society--running government in a fiscally disciplined way. It's as happy as having a debonaire emu around sometimes.

The needs of the state are expressed to the Senator by the majority vote. You are not going to get fiscally responsible senators who are beholden to the majority party in the state senate.

Unlike OddOne, you tried to make a case.

 

[JDzBrain]

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

You DO realize that the quote is a very short MISQUOTED blurb from a very long paragraph in a multi page letter Mr. Jefferson wrote to a historian in response to the gentleman's asking Jefferson's opinion on calling a convention to alter the Constitution of Virgina...right?

You will notice that Mr. Jefferson used the plurals of the words laws and constitutions, which I made bold in you partial quote. He did this because he was talking about states...plural...constitutions. You know, the places the founders viewed as a bunch of little laboratories for government. Or you would if you read the Federalist papers. ;~)

HERE is the way that passage ACTUALLY was written...with the part you leave out made bold and I think you can see that it absolutely changes the tenor of it entirely!

"...I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.... "

NOT the sterling endorsement of constitutional change that your out of context quote would have us believe!

The letter was...in the most genteel manner of the day...a rebuff of the notion of constitutional amendments, except under the most dire of needs!

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?

Where in the Constitution is that power GIVEN to them? The founders went to great trouble to spell out the powers given an forbidden to the branches and states and then make sure there is no mistake by saying all powers NOT expressly given or forbidden in the Constitution ARE reserved to the states or the people...yet I find no mention of the authority you seem to believe exist.

 

[JDzBrain]

The needs of the state are expressed to the Senator by the majority vote. You are not going to get fiscally responsible senators who are beholden to the majority party in the state senate.

Unlike OddOne, you tried to make a case.

Uh...NO...they ain't expressed through the vote. That's why its called the 'popular' vote. It's an expression of popularity, based as much on personality and public image...shaped by MONEY...as anything!

Why in the HELL do you guys think they fought against the ending of earmarks tooth and nail? THAT is their power!

They try to claim that directing how the people's money is spent is their job...and it's true, but it does NOT have to be through earmarks. It is SUPPOSED to be done through specific legislative action that directs the funds and their use that is voted on and agreed to by BOTH houses of Congress and signed by the president. NOT some tacked on amendment to a farm bill that builds a bridge to nowhere or fixes pot hole in New York or names a science building at a college campus after a governor in Tennessee.

If the state's representatives in Washington...the Senators were TRULY beholden to the state they represent, that bride in Alaska would have never even been proposed. And YES there were politics involved before the 17th. Why doesn't someone explain just exactly HOW passing the 17th Amendment changed that?

The difference today is that fool screen you are looking at. The same kind of insanity that was going on before 1918 can NOT go unchangeable in today's information age. Just do a search for conservative forums or progressive forums or libertarian forums in your state...hell, your city or town. I'll guarantee that you find one...and it is VERY ACTIVE if you do.

Repealing the 17th is the ONLY sure way to get the electorate engaged in local and state politics and clean up that FREAKIN' MESS in Washington. It HAS to start at the local level!

Will it be messy and painful. HELL yes, but NOTHING worth doing is done without a cost!

 

[del]

it's always semi interesting to watch some asshat on a messageboard interpret the words of someone who's been dead for two hundred years.

strangely, the interpretation always supports the asshat.

go figure

 

[freedombecki]

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!

Because, ya know, if the states appointed the Senators there would be no politics involved, right?

I mean prior to 1910, Senators were apolitical, right?

Thank you for making my case, Dr. Grump. Their senators would be all about THEIR OWN STATE, and not somebody else's state. If the state objected too much to the errant Senator from their state who failed to help their state's governmental issue, they would immediately prepare to put in a better head on Thinktank Hill. Thanks for the assist!

 

[freedombecki]

it's always semi interesting to watch some asshat on a messageboard interpret the words of someone who's been dead for two hundred years.

strangely, the interpretation always supports the asshat.

go figure

/wiping monitor with nearest available cloth item...

 

[JDzBrain]

Almost as interesting as watching some asshat flail aimlessly because the light of a whole truth burns away the fog of a partial lie!

Strangely, NOT as interesting as watching some asshat ask someone who has been dead for 200 years what they meant would be!

 

[del]

Almost as interesting as watching some asshat flail aimlessly because the light of a whole truth burns away the fog of a partial lie!

Strangely, NOT as interesting as watching some asshat ask someone who has been dead for 200 years what they meant would be!

perhaps you should try again in english and perhaps with a tad less pretension?

 

[Toro]

it's always semi interesting to watch some asshat on a messageboard interpret the words of someone who's been dead for two hundred years.

strangely, the interpretation always supports the asshat.

go figure

Jefferson thought I was awesome.

 

[del]

it's always semi interesting to watch some asshat on a messageboard interpret the words of someone who's been dead for two hundred years.

strangely, the interpretation always supports the asshat.

go figure

Jefferson thought I was awesome.

who could blame him?

rufus king admired my golf swing

 

[JakeStarkey]

The needs of the state are expressed to the Senator by the majority vote. You are not going to get fiscally responsible senators who are beholden to the majority party in the state senate.

Unlike OddOne, you tried to make a case.

. . . . Repealing the 17th is the ONLY sure way to get the electorate engaged in local and state politics and clean up that FREAKIN' MESS in Washington. It HAS to start at the local level!. . . .

Well, well, well . . . a call for an inverse populism to revert control of the Senators from We the People to the controlled interests in the state leges.

Your argumentation fails.

 

[Dr Grump]

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:

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:

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!

Because, ya know, if the states appointed the Senators there would be no politics involved, right?

I mean prior to 1910, Senators were apolitical, right?

Thank you for making my case, Dr. Grump. Their senators would be all about THEIR OWN STATE, and not somebody else's state. If the state objected too much to the errant Senator from their state who failed to help their state's governmental issue, they would immediately prepare to put in a better head on Thinktank Hill. Thanks for the assist!

And if you really think that, then you are naive. Was that the way it was prior to 1910?

 

[Tsalagi]

I guess you don't remember Senator Richard Byrd, Senator Lyndon Johnson, Senator Strom Thurmond, etc who spent their entire careers getting as much for their own state, to hell with the others. Or Senator Daniel Inoai, whe got an Interstate Highway built on the Island of Haraii?

 

[freedombecki]

Because, ya know, if the states appointed the Senators there would be no politics involved, right?

I mean prior to 1910, Senators were apolitical, right?

Thank you for making my case, Dr. Grump. Their senators would be all about THEIR OWN STATE, and not somebody else's state. If the state objected too much to the errant Senator from their state who failed to help their state's governmental issue, they would immediately prepare to put in a better head on Thinktank Hill. Thanks for the assist!

And if you really think that, then you are naive. Was that the way it was prior to 1910?

No doubt they had some problems. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater isn't much of a solution, either.

You probably were taught that Americans are naive and that you should patronize them at every opportunity, great or small.

Over here, we have public pow wows, and with certain people in Congress diverting billions of dollars to their own families with 100% guaranteed business deals, we realize the 17th Amendment fell short of its intended prevention and replaced it with something much worse. We need to fix it and get rid of this government-as-god crap that is being foisted on America by groups interested only in lining their pockets with tax money the American people pay, salving their miserable guilt complex by ensuring the lowest 47% pay no taxes to get them elected to help themselves to more for themselves and their inner circle on "rich people's money" for which they have nothing but disrespect.

They're leeches. It's time to clean the pond.