Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[konradv]

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.

True! That's why I support public financing of elections. Humans are prone to corruption, if it's made easy. Remove the temptation and let the better parts of human nature shine through.

 

[SayMyName]

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!

I agree it should be repealed.

 

[Oddball]

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.

And a popularly elected Senate is merely an extension of the party man mob rule exercised in the HorR....The suckage of bicameral mobocracy is hardly any kind of equitable trade.

Add to that the fact that a popularly elected Senate seat has very nearly become a lifetime appointment.

Moreover, the parliamentary systems in Canada and the UK aren't comparable to the much more balanced small "r" republican model, as originally set forth in America.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

No, it isn't. The Framers had it right. The Senators should have always been appointed by the State legislatures to prevent precisely what the founders knew would happen: mob rule. They are not responsible for the sick show America can watch any time day or night on C-Span of Senators getting up on the floor and mooning the other Senators over genuine and positive political tripe.

If Senators were appointed by states now as the Constitution provided, we would not have two ring circuses, only one. It's okay to have one three-ring circus, so long as the other brings reason and objectivity into the mix.

Reason and objectivity haven't been around the halls of Congress since the 17th Amendment was adopted and pwned the Constitution.

I've read both sides here, and I am convinced those who favor abolishing the 17th Amendment would bring that reason and logic back to this nation once again.

I've read every post.

Then listen to the words of someone who lived over a hundred years ago, maybe closer to 200 and taught one of America's favorite sons a lesson just by winning an argument in favor of deciding issues within the parameter of the original Constitution and what it does and does not provide:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0]Davy Crockett - Not Yours to Give - YouTube[/ame]
​

 

[rightwinger]

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.

No, it isn't. The Framers had it right. The Senators should have always been appointed by the State legislatures to prevent precisely what the founders knew would happen: mob rule. They are not responsible for the sick show America can watch any time day or night on C-Span of Senators getting up on the floor and mooning the other Senators over genuine and positive political tripe.

If Senators were appointed by states now as the Constitution provided, we would not have two ring circuses, only one. It's okay to have one three-ring circus, so long as the other brings reason and objectivity into the mix.

Reason and objectivity haven't been around the halls of Congress since the 17th Amendment was adopted and pwned the Constitution.

I've read both sides here, and I am convinced those who favor abolishing the 17th Amendment would bring that reason and logic back to this nation once again.

I've read every post.

Then listen to the words of someone who lived over a hundred years ago, maybe closer to 200 and taught one of America's favorite sons a lesson just by winning an argument in favor of deciding issues within the parameter of the original Constitution and what it does and does not provide:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0]Davy Crockett - Not Yours to Give - YouTube[/ame]
​

American democracy is now "mob rule"?

Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat

 

[Oddball]

American democracy is now "mob rule"?

Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.

Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat

Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!

 

[American Horse]

[ ... ] The Framers had it right. The Senators should have always been appointed by the State legislatures to prevent precisely what the founders knew would happen: mob rule. They are not responsible for the sick show America can watch any time day or night on C-Span of Senators getting up on the floor and mooning the other Senators over genuine and positive political tripe.

If Senators were appointed by states now as the Constitution provided, we would not have two ring circuses, only one. It's okay to have one three-ring circus, so long as the other brings reason and objectivity into the mix.

Reason and objectivity haven't been around the halls of Congress since the 17th Amendment was adopted and pwned the Constitution.

I've read both sides here, and I am convinced those who favor abolishing the 17th Amendment would bring that reason and logic back to this nation once again.

I've read every post.[ ... ]

Becki, that is a sound post. The House is actually degraded by not having a superior model to fashion itself after. Since the 17th Amend, there are no adults in the "room" as a foil to thte lower house.

 

[konradv]

American democracy is now "mob rule"?

Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.

Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat

Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!

That's not because of how they're selected, but how the selection is funded. Who's buying Senate votes? Follow the money.

 

[freedombecki]

Exactly.

Dead on.

No, it isn't. The Framers had it right. The Senators should have always been appointed by the State legislatures to prevent precisely what the founders knew would happen: mob rule. They are not responsible for the sick show America can watch any time day or night on C-Span of Senators getting up on the floor and mooning the other Senators over genuine and positive political tripe.

If Senators were appointed by states now as the Constitution provided, we would not have two ring circuses, only one. It's okay to have one three-ring circus, so long as the other brings reason and objectivity into the mix.

Reason and objectivity haven't been around the halls of Congress since the 17th Amendment was adopted and pwned the Constitution.

I've read both sides here, and I am convinced those who favor abolishing the 17th Amendment would bring that reason and logic back to this nation once again.

I've read every post.

Then listen to the words of someone who lived over a hundred years ago, maybe closer to 200 and taught one of America's favorite sons a lesson just by winning an argument in favor of deciding issues within the parameter of the original Constitution and what it does and does not provide:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoEJ-D2bgc0"]Davy Crockett - Not Yours to Give - YouTube[/ame]
​

American democracy is now "mob rule"?

Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat

As in Mayor Blagovich's office less than 4 years ago? He wouldn't have gotten notice if for every 100 words he says, 15 of them are the F-word.

The Senate should be reinstated to its former Honor-above-all status and its attention to what is good for states rights.

Without a reasoning and logical body acquired by appointment and not stump promises, the Constitution is frittering away, faster and faster with each passing day.

The only senators who get elected in mob-rule states are power mongers, eager to spend other peoples' money.

Can't pass a budget? That's because popular people have this tendency to go for lesser peoples' necks, whereas scholars go for the objective of doing the right thing within the parameters of the rules, not the rules as the mob would like them to be.

Please re-examine the posts of those who favor abolishing the 17th Amendment in order to restore the Constitution. They hit some truly raw nerves, I know, but they're on track for the only way this republic is going to continue to thrive. Pulling out all the stops the founders intended had bad consequences, namely the failure to pass a budget to eliminate yet one more parameter of logic and reason--spending more money than you have to work with.

 

[Oddball]

American democracy is now "mob rule"?

Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.

Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat

Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!

That's not because of how they're selected, but how the selection is funded. Who's buying Senate votes? Follow the money.

In the instance I spoke of, the US taxpayer was put on the hook for those bought votes.

Distasteful and corrupt as the practice is, I find people buying votes with their own money far less repugnent than picking my pocket to do so.

 

[rightwinger]

American democracy is now "mob rule"?

Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.

Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat

Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!

That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?

 

[Oddball]

American democracy is now "mob rule"?

Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.

Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat

Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!

That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?

What doesn't happen with appointed Senators is out-of-control federal spending and bureaucratic bloat, as apportionment meant that state agencies were the ones collecting and forwarding all federal taxes....Hence, Senators had very strong motivation to keep the HoR in check and the feds in their box.

Since the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the size of the federal gubmint has swelled from a scant few percent of GDP to very nearly 1/4....This is no coincidence.

 

[Listening]

American democracy is now "mob rule"?

Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.

Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat

Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!

That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?

How will they buy the votes ?

Senators that are accountable to states will look at things differently.

That isn't to say this would be perfect, but at least we could kick the hell out of state legislators who select these clowns if one of them goes awry.

I have no expectation that things will get a great deal better until we get a lot more interested in what is going on.

But it would be an improvement by far (in terms of holding the kinds of dialogue we want to hold).

 

[freedombecki]

American democracy is now "mob rule"?

Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.

Nothing as corrupt as politicians making back room deals on who gets a senate seat

Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!

That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?

Rightwinger, a long time ago, I had a boss (CPA) who literally and physically screamed a guy from the back office all the way to out the front door where his last words were "And don't you ever come back here!"

After he went back to his office, I asked one of the other ladies up front what in the world was wrong with Mr. Bates? She said, "Oh, nothing, he does it all the time."

As time went on, and after things had settled down, I asked quietly another CPA why Mr. Bates was so angry. He looked up at me over his rimmed glasses, and said "The guy was a crook." Huh? "But he was so polite, how do you know he was a crook?" I queried. "Because he wanted a CPA to post date a payment he had not made yet to cover his butt for probably stealing money from the business." "oh."

Senators have the task of making laws that stick. We need some wise men there, not just a pretty face with nothing in the head.

The bottom line is, if you eliminate intellect and integrity from the final signers of necessary legislation, you're letting emotion run the government.

That's how Rome burned and Nero fiddled as he watched. It was burning because the leadership didn't give a rat's patoot.

We need to get back to saner law-making proceedures. Those who brought this topic up really hit at the wrong turn America has taken since then. The slight decline we've seen over the last 100 years has taken a 90-degree plummet to planet earth thanks to the information age, and we're near disaster.

Let's let the Constitution do what it was intended to do, not what emotions do to end this Bill of Rights privilege and that one.

Appoint wise men to the Senate as determined by State Legislators who know who's intellectual gold, and we will indeed see a good outcome.

Buying a seat? Enforce that as an offense that carries a 30-year firm sentence for briber and the bribed, and it just won't be happening.

State Legislators can be like a good CPA. They have good sense for who will represent their state and make them look like the good honest folk they can be when citizens expect them to be. A wise Senator will not allow lesser men destroy the Constitution or play financial feel-good tricks that overburden taxpayers in the long run.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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!

This is one more 'issue' the right wing supports and most of them don't understand why. Plutocrats want to be able to control the US Senate and will be able to do so if they control state legislatures. The first step is for the Republicans to limit access to the polls. By limiting the number of citizens who are likely to vote for a Democrat, the greater the opportunity for the power elite to gain control of the US Senate.

 

[Listening]

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!

This is one more 'issue' the right wing supports and most of them don't understand why. Plutocrats want to be able to control the US Senate and will be able to do so if they control state legislatures. The first step is for the Republicans to limit access to the polls. By limiting the number of citizens who are likely to vote for a Democrat, the greater the opportunity for the power elite to gain control of the US Senate.

Pure nonsense.

We will vote for the people who will do the chosing. It is perfectly in line with bringing control back to the local level.

Most on the right and on the left don't understand how it was set up to begin with and why. Given the left's aversion to states powers (solve everything in the SCOTUS where unelected scions of their philosophy can make up crap in favor of liberal values...i.e. the Warren Court....), it is easy to understand why the would not want them appointed.

The senate would appoint members of the court who would only do the minimal in disrputing the legislative process. More importantly, they would appointe people who would not, themselves, legislate from the bench.

 

[rightwinger]

Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.


Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!

That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?

What doesn't happen with appointed Senators is out-of-control federal spending and bureaucratic bloat, as apportionment meant that state agencies were the ones collecting and forwarding all federal taxes....Hence, Senators had very strong motivation to keep the HoR in check and the feds in their box.

Since the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the size of the federal gubmint has swelled from a scant few percent of GDP to very nearly 1/4....This is no coincidence.

Nonsense...

The era of the 1800s were some of the most corrupt in our history. An appointed Senator has no worries about facing the taxpayer and accounting for his performance. All he has to do is ensure that his party remains in power at the state level.

The federal government has swelled since the early 1900s because we became a modern democracy and a global superpower. The well being of the people is much better than it was in the 19th century you covet

 

[JakeStarkey]

The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement. Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.

 

[rightwinger]

Democracy has always been mob rule, no matter where it has been practiced.


Right....And buying Seante votes with billions of federal tax dollars, to get a bill passed that 60% of the country doesn't want, is a model of propriety!

That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?

Rightwinger, a long time ago, I had a boss (CPA) who literally and physically screamed a guy from the back office all the way to out the front door where his last words were "And don't you ever come back here!"

After he went back to his office, I asked one of the other ladies up front what in the world was wrong with Mr. Bates? She said, "Oh, nothing, he does it all the time."

As time went on, and after things had settled down, I asked quietly another CPA why Mr. Bates was so angry. He looked up at me over his rimmed glasses, and said "The guy was a crook." Huh? "But he was so polite, how do you know he was a crook?" I queried. "Because he wanted a CPA to post date a payment he had not made yet to cover his butt for probably stealing money from the business." "oh."

Senators have the task of making laws that stick. We need some wise men there, not just a pretty face with nothing in the head.

The bottom line is, if you eliminate intellect and integrity from the final signers of necessary legislation, you're letting emotion run the government.

That's how Rome burned and Nero fiddled as he watched. It was burning because the leadership didn't give a rat's patoot.

We need to get back to saner law-making proceedures. Those who brought this topic up really hit at the wrong turn America has taken since then. The slight decline we've seen over the last 100 years has taken a 90-degree plummet to planet earth thanks to the information age, and we're near disaster.

Let's let the Constitution do what it was intended to do, not what emotions do to end this Bill of Rights privilege and that one.

Appoint wise men to the Senate as determined by State Legislators who know who's intellectual gold, and we will indeed see a good outcome.

Buying a seat? Enforce that as an offense that carries a 30-year firm sentence for briber and the bribed, and it just won't be happening.

State Legislators can be like a good CPA. They have good sense for who will represent their state and make them look like the good honest folk they can be when citizens expect them to be. A wise Senator will not allow lesser men destroy the Constitution or play financial feel-good tricks that overburden taxpayers in the long run.

Nice story....but I am not buying it

I live in one of the most corrupt states in the nation. We still have party bosses who make the decisions on who gets what positions and where the patronage goes. No way do I want those guys selecting my Senators

 

[Oddball]

That doesn't happen with appointed Senators?

What doesn't happen with appointed Senators is out-of-control federal spending and bureaucratic bloat, as apportionment meant that state agencies were the ones collecting and forwarding all federal taxes....Hence, Senators had very strong motivation to keep the HoR in check and the feds in their box.

Since the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, the size of the federal gubmint has swelled from a scant few percent of GDP to very nearly 1/4....This is no coincidence.

Nonsense...

The era of the 1800s were some of the most corrupt in our history. An appointed Senator has no worries about facing the taxpayer and accounting for his performance. All he has to do is ensure that his party remains in power at the state level.

The federal government has swelled since the early 1900s because we became a modern democracy and a global superpower. The well being of the people is much better than it was in the 19th century you covet

You're changing the nature of the argument.

Nobody here said that appointed Senators wouldn't be subject to corruption...As though the clear corruption going on today is any better a deal.

The point is that state legislature appointment of Senators was a check and balance against federal bureaucracy and spending getting out of control and consuming as much of the GDP as it is today....A check against federal power that was removed by the 17th Amendment.

Your assertion that America became a "modern democracy" is notwithstanding...Mob rule is mob rule, no matter the time frame involved.