Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If a state makes a mistake, then a small portion of the country suffers and they change it.
Henry Clay wasn't a constitutional framer, nincompoop.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.
The only thing breathtaking is your ham-handed attempt to move the goalposts.
Clay's birth occurred in 1777. The Constitution was ratified by states in the years 1787-88. I don't think Secretary of State Clay was one of the founders. In fact, when he did come to power, he overthrew many founding principles with taxation schemes and things, several decades later.Henry Clay wasn't a constitutional framer, nincompoop.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.
The only thing breathtaking is your ham-handed attempt to move the goalposts.
But Clay was appointed by the Kentucky state legislature, which is the point, not where you are moving the goal posts. Your ignorance and lack of education concering the American story boggles the minds of those who understand it. But, then again, you are a typically illiterate wannabee so-called libertarian. Clay would label you the fool that you are clearly demonstrated that you are to the entire board.
Henry Clay wasn't a constitutional framer, nincompoop.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.
The only thing breathtaking is your ham-handed attempt to move the goalposts.
But Clay was appointed by the Kentucky state legislature, which is the point, not where you are moving the goal posts. Your ignorance and lack of education concering the American story boggles the minds of those who understand it. But, then again, you are a typically illiterate wannabee so-called libertarian. Clay would label you the fool that you are clearly demonstrated that you are to the entire board.
No one gives a flip that Clay was not a Founder. He was, however, operating under the system of the original Constitution until the 17th amendment was ratified. Clay is proof positive that the Senate was not a curb on the House. To suggest that is pure revelation of our American narrative. Study his American Plan and see who supported the use of federal funds for internal improvements.
No one gives a flip that Clay was not a Founder. He was, however, operating under the system of the original Constitution until the 17th amendment was ratified. Clay is proof positive that the Senate was not a curb on the House. To suggest that is pure revelation of our American narrative. Study his American Plan and see who supported the use of federal funds for internal improvements.
Funny, I do not agree with your arguments about Senate, but agree with your arguments about Clay.
Was the Senate supposed to be a curb on the House? And is not always getting their way make the Senate irrelevant to original purpose? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.
Dante is assuming that the far right gives a crap about learning the actual American narrative. Me thinketh he assumeth too mucheth.
No one gives a flip that Clay was not a Founder. He was, however, operating under the system of the original Constitution until the 17th amendment was ratified. Clay is proof positive that the Senate was not a curb on the House. To suggest that is pure revelation of our American narrative. Study his American Plan and see who supported the use of federal funds for internal improvements.
Funny, I do not agree with your arguments about Senate, but agree with your arguments about Clay.
Was the Senate supposed to be a curb on the House? And is not always getting their way make the Senate irrelevant to original purpose? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.
Minds of good will and balance can agree to disagree. Nothing is perfect. Other than Odd. Ask him.
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.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.
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.
Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the 17th Amendment cant be repealed in good faith, as the motive of supporters of such an action is purely partisan.
you truly are a political innocent. you get a gold star here. 
Except that they don't get voted out of office....They're basically lifetime offices, unless you get caught with the proverbial live boy or dead woman.Like fucking hell they are.
Senators are now mere national party man hack tools just like House Representatives...Like I said, bicameral mobocracy.
And appointed Senators are state party hack tools.......I'd prefer the people have the right to vote them out of office rather than leave it to state political hacks
With state appointment, you'd get defacto term limits based upon the changing nature of who controls the states.
But I guess you liberoidals are perfectly fine with being lorded over by a completely detached an unaccountable elite few, just as long as they carry that (D) by their names.
Why Repeal 17th Amendment?
How many times have you had your U.S. Senator approach you and discuss impending legislation with you? Even though you voted for them, they probably did not contact you once. But how many times do you suppose they contacted Enron about impending legislation. Enron and other corporations financed their campaigns, to the tune of millions of dollars, to get you to vote these senators into office. You can safely bet that your U.S. Senators discuss impending legislation with these corporations on a routine basis.
How often do U.S. Senators discuss federal affairs with your state legislator? I am still looking for a state legislator who has been contacted by their U.S. Senator regarding federal affairs.
Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Senators discussed federal affairs with their state legislators on a regular basis. At THAT time U.S. Senators did not have to raise millions of dollars to run for office. They were not beholden to the large corporations.
There is no way our U.S. Senators are going to personally discuss federal affairs with, and handle the input from, 900,000 people. The only choice we have before us is to have them discuss our federal affairs with the State Legislatures as opposed to the large corporations. As originally included in the U.S. Constitution, the people of the states will continue to enjoy the right to vote for their U.S. Representatives.
I am including the final version of my presentation which I gave today before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee.
You get your choice for Senators at the state level, when you vote for your state legislatures and Governor....Therefore, when you have the natural turnover which occurs within the state houses, then your Senators also tend to turn over, rather than them being a reflection of how your state operated several decades ago....Then you don't have a basically imperial Senate, populated with fossils like Dole, McCain, Kennedy, Byrd, Lugar, ad nauseum, hanging around like herpes.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.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.
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.
I've never understood this argument from people who claim to be libertarians or conservatives. According to the political right, government is a total fuck-up. It can't do anything right. We should leave it to the market. People should have as much say over their daily lives and choices and the government should have less because people know more about their wants and needs than the government. But according to those who say we should appoint Senators, giving more power to government officials and taking away the individual's choice is a good thing. Appointing Senators means government officials dictate to you how you are going to be governed and takes away the choice of the individual. IOW, Big Gubmint knows best on how everyone should be governed than the individual. It's a big contradiction.
Another argument is that the Founding Fathers knew what was best when they appointed Senators because it would lead to mob rule. If they knew best, they also knew best that the document they had written wasn't infallible. They understood that times change. That's why they put in a mechanism to amend the Constitution. They knew best that even if the principals they espoused were timeless, the law and how people were governed was not. The law and how individuals are governed changes throughout time. The constitution was written 225 years ago. It was not written exactly for 2012, 225 years later, anymore than it was written exactly for 1562, 225 years prior. So even though the principals may be timeless, the law is not.
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.And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britor. It sucks.
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.
I've never understood this argument from people who claim to be libertarians or conservatives. According to the political right, government is a total fuck-up. It can't do anything right. We should leave it to the market. People should have as much say over their daily lives and choices and the government should have less because people know more about their wants and needs than the government. But according to those who say we should appoint Senators, giving more power to government officials and taking away the individual's choice is a good thing. Appointing Senators means government officials dictate to you how you are going to be governed and takes away the choice of the individual. IOW, Big Gubmint knows best on how everyone should be governed than the individual. It's a big contradiction.
Another argument is that the Founding Fathers knew what was best when they appointed Senators because it would lead to mob rule. If they knew best, they also knew best that the document they had written wasn't infallible. They understood that times change. That's why they put in a mechanism to amend the Constitution. They knew best that even if the principals they espoused were timeless, the law and how people were governed was not. The law and how individuals are governed changes throughout time. The constitution was written 225 years ago. It was not written exactly for 2012, 225 years later, anymore than it was written exactly for 1562, 225 years prior. So even though the principals may be timeless, the law is not.
Now they're basically appointments for life...Some progress.Why Repeal 17th Amendment?
How many times have you had your U.S. Senator approach you and discuss impending legislation with you? Even though you voted for them, they probably did not contact you once. But how many times do you suppose they contacted Enron about impending legislation. Enron and other corporations financed their campaigns, to the tune of millions of dollars, to get you to vote these senators into office. You can safely bet that your U.S. Senators discuss impending legislation with these corporations on a routine basis.
How often do U.S. Senators discuss federal affairs with your state legislator? I am still looking for a state legislator who has been contacted by their U.S. Senator regarding federal affairs.
Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Senators discussed federal affairs with their state legislators on a regular basis. At THAT time U.S. Senators did not have to raise millions of dollars to run for office. They were not beholden to the large corporations.
There is no way our U.S. Senators are going to personally discuss federal affairs with, and handle the input from, 900,000 people. The only choice we have before us is to have them discuss our federal affairs with the State Legislatures as opposed to the large corporations. As originally included in the U.S. Constitution, the people of the states will continue to enjoy the right to vote for their U.S. Representatives.
I am including the final version of my presentation which I gave today before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee.
One reason why we have the 17th amendment is because Senator offices were bought and sold like property. There were several investigations into corruption on Senate seats in the 19th century. All appointing Senators would do is flow the corruption from the national level to the state level.
FTR, the largest contributor to Jeb Bush's gubernatorial campaigns was Enron. Those contributions to Bush and the state Republican party would have skyrocketed exponentially had the state appointed Senators.
Funny, I do not agree with your arguments about Senate, but agree with your arguments about Clay.
Was the Senate supposed to be a curb on the House? And is not always getting their way make the Senate irrelevant to original purpose? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.
Minds of good will and balance can agree to disagree. Nothing is perfect. Other than Odd. Ask him.
OMFG! You have compromised yourself in their eyes. You've treated an opposing view as worthy of respect. Shame!!!
What "they" think about respect does not bear consideration. They are weirdos.
