Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Peach]

Than a Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? The problem is not our elected reps so much, Oddball, as it is us, the American electorate, who elect exactly the type of reps we deserve.

Yes, old quote: we get the government we deserve.......................

 

[Oddball]

Than a Mitch McConnell and John Boehner? The problem is not our elected reps so much, Oddball, as it is us, the American electorate, who elect exactly the type of reps we deserve.

Boehner isn't in the Senate, fool.

The reason Senators were appointed by state legislatures and seated by the Governors was so that the states had a say in federal spending....It wasn't any machination to prevent cronyism or dopey corrupt politicians from populating the District of Criminals, which is going to happen no matter what you do.

An additional upshot is that the Senators would be rotated in and out on a fairly regular basis, as the makeup of the legislatures of the several states changed over time, rather than having douchebags like Byrd and McQuisling just planting themselves in the Senate for life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your comment about Boehner is merely a red herring as well as a typical doosh rant.

I know the elitist tripe that you put out as to "why" the 17th never should have been ratified or what it should be repealed now.

Your arguments were wrong then and they are wrong now.

 

[Oddball]

The subject is the Senate...Boehner isn't in the Senate...Popular election of HoR members has been SOP since day one...And you're still a nitwit.

The reasons for the HoR and Senate being set up the way they were is an historical fact, that only a completely ignorant, dishonest and detached poseur chump like you could disregard.

You may now return to genuflecting to your golden idol of Woodrow Wilson.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Implying your red herring is not a red herring is a red herring itself. Let it go, or the 'nit wit' term is yours alone.

Only "a completely ignorant, dishonest and detached" hack ignores that history changes, and that we are not bound by your interp of what the Founders meant, oh chumply one.

When are you ever going to offer anything of real interest. This mantra of yours, this insipid libertarianism, is so boring.

 

[Oddball]

There's no red herring....The topic is the Senate, therefore members of the HoRs are entirely irrelevant.

And you're still a completely ignorant, dishonest and detached poseur chump on the topic at hand, which is the 17th Amendment and why the houses of the legislature were set up the way they were by the framers of the republic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why drag a red herring that is smelling so badly, Odd?

You are a ignorant libertarian (that's redundant) for sure, aren't you?

If Americans agreed with your silliness, we could repeal the 17th, which would be stupid and unnecessary and won't happen in our lifetimes.

You simply do not comprehend the American narrative, its history, or Americanism.

 

[Listening]

Implying your red herring is not a red herring is a red herring itself. Let it go, or the 'nit wit' term is yours alone.

Only "a completely ignorant, dishonest and detached" hack ignores that history changes, and that we are not bound by your interp of what the Founders meant, oh chumply one.

When are you ever going to offer anything of real interest. This mantra of yours, this insipid libertarianism, is so boring.

I thought history was history ?

This is an intereting admission. Can you explain more.

For sure we are not bound by anything and an argument to repeal the 17th is not going to be based on the past. It is going to be based on the fact that in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states. I live in one state. I care more about what happens in that state and have more impact on it than the other 49. So, I really don't have much value for getting to wrapped up in what they do other than to learn what they are doing well and hope we can apply it here.

If a state makes a mistake, then a small portion of the country suffers and they change it. If Obama makes a mistake (which is about every 10 seconds), the whole country has to deal with it and changing things is very very difficult.

So, regardless of what you say happened (and what are you going to do to change it ?), what we are looking at is the here and now. If it wasn't that way to start, it still makes sense to do it that way now.

When this country was formed, the population was 6,000,000 people. Now, that is the population of a smaller to mid-sized state. Why would we not want to operate more independently ?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Come on Sallow, you know precisely why it's needed. Remember...balance between the large states and the small states. The Senate is where Rhode Island can avoid getting trampled by New York. I can think of a lot of states that would have a very strong opinion about getting rid of the Senate. In addition to RI there's Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc

And the reason for the Electoral College.

I'm sure the left would like to see that repealed.

for all of you newcomers to USMB ----- T is here = alert!

loserthread

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

... in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states.

...

federal power out of D.C.? are you so fucking stupid you believe states will do what is needed for national unity? without a strong national government we are back to a confederation of states, which was a complete failure right out of the gate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Implying your red herring is not a red herring is a red herring itself. Let it go, or the 'nit wit' term is yours alone.

Only "a completely ignorant, dishonest and detached" hack ignores that history changes, and that we are not bound by your interp of what the Founders meant, oh chumply one.

When are you ever going to offer anything of real interest. This mantra of yours, this insipid libertarianism, is so boring.

I thought history was history ?

This is an intereting admission. Can you explain more.

For sure we are not bound by anything and an argument to repeal the 17th is not going to be based on the past. It is going to be based on the fact that in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states. I live in one state. I care more about what happens in that state and have more impact on it than the other 49. So, I really don't have much value for getting to wrapped up in what they do other than to learn what they are doing well and hope we can apply it here.

If a state makes a mistake, then a small portion of the country suffers and they change it. If Obama makes a mistake (which is about every 10 seconds), the whole country has to deal with it and changing things is very very difficult.

So, regardless of what you say happened (and what are you going to do to change it ?), what we are looking at is the here and now. If it wasn't that way to start, it still makes sense to do it that way now.

When this country was formed, the population was 6,000,000 people. Now, that is the population of a smaller to mid-sized state. Why would we not want to operate more independently ?

History is not static, it is an ongoing process of development, a continuing narrative.

The proper process is amendment. If the anti-17thers can get the super majorities, then I would surely abide by it. I trust the American people far more than I do state legislatures.

 

[Sallow]

Hey good idea, get rid of the Senate and then what would you do when you find yourselves at the whim of say, California, New York, etc. ? and you just happen to say live in Wyoming? Well the answer is tough, as the house being the only body that matters and as it represents the "people" and the vast majority of those people are are in a small number of states, then it passes that the legislation that will pass will represent that. Theres a reason for the Senate, now while it at times seems to be slow and in disagreement with the House, that is exactly why it is there. It exists so that those people who live in states like Arizona, Alabama, Maine, take your pick don't find ourselves with the same laws that don't fit our states like they do in say, California, or Texas, etc. One more thing of note here, with no Senate, that would mark a shift away from the current form of Govt. we enjoy now and move towards a " majority rules" Govt. so I thought it worth reminding everyone of something.

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... John Adam's

We've got multiple checks against "majorities" while at the same time we have people saying that the majority of Americans agree with them.

Well? Which is it?

 

[Sallow]

Get rid of the Senate, altogether.

Really..why is it needed?

Come on Sallow, you know precisely why it's needed. Remember...balance between the large states and the small states. The Senate is where Rhode Island can avoid getting trampled by New York. I can think of a lot of states that would have a very strong opinion about getting rid of the Senate. In addition to RI there's Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc

We have both an a electoral college and a senate to "protect" the rights of the small states. Additionally we have states imposing all sorts of hurdles to voting. And now..we have about 41% of the electorate that can vote..actually voting. That's with the Citizen's United deal thrown in for good measure.

That bodes well for democracy, how, exactly?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

... in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states.

...

federal power out of D.C.? are you so fucking stupid you believe states will do what is needed for national unity? without a strong national government we are back to a confederation of states, which was a complete failure right out of the gate.

He’s your ‘classic’ conservative – he wants to return to a time when schools were segregated, women couldn’t vote, and 10 year olds worked in factories 80 hours a week.

The good ol’ days.

 

[Sallow]

... in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states.

...

federal power out of D.C.? are you so fucking stupid you believe states will do what is needed for national unity? without a strong national government we are back to a confederation of states, which was a complete failure right out of the gate.

He’s your ‘classic’ conservative – he wants to return to a time when schools were segregated, women couldn’t vote, and 10 year olds worked in factories 80 hours a week.

The good ol’ days.

It's kind of worse then that.

The "Classic Liberal" is yearning for the days when a person could own another person. Like property.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

... in 2012, the best thing for this country is to get power out of D.C. and back in the hands of the states.

...

federal power out of D.C.? are you so fucking stupid you believe states will do what is needed for national unity? without a strong national government we are back to a confederation of states, which was a complete failure right out of the gate.

He’s your ‘classic’ conservative – he wants to return to a time when schools were segregated, women couldn’t vote, and 10 year olds worked in factories 80 hours a week.

The good ol’ days.

Dante, a classic conservative?











whooeeeeeeeeee!

 

[Toro]

One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are. America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.

Democracy schlemocracy.

The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.

And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are. America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.

Democracy schlemocracy.

The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.

half good

 

[Sallow]

One thing that surprises me about America is how anti-Democratic some on the fringe right are. America's global "brand" first and foremost is democracy.

Democracy schlemocracy.

The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.

And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.

Exactly.

Dead on.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Democracy schlemocracy.

The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.

And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.

Exactly.

Dead on.

not much wrong with the US system. It is the process that has been corrupted.

no system is perfect. no system will ever be perfect, and all process will be corrupted over a period of time as corruption is driven in part, by human nature.