Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?

[Toro]

That's not an answer. If you've heard this every time you "speak to a socialist, environmentalist or watched TV," you'd think you'd have a good answer by now.

The natives occupied this land before there were Europeans. If property rights are a universal, timeless, inalienable right, Europeans took that land from the natives by force, not by rule of law. The natives did not sell the land to us. We took it.

So how do you reconcile taking land with the universal, timeless, inalienable right to own property?

What does our treatment of the native Americans have to do with whether states can secede from the union?

I never mentioned anything about secession.

 

[Publius1787]

I will start with number two because I hear this arguement everytime I speak to a socialist, enviromentalist, or watch link tv. America is not the British. There you go. Weve had hardly any imperialism in the U.S. and nearly all of it was done by constituional disrespecting progressivs. Never try to justify a wrong with what you consider to be another wrong.

That's not an answer. If you've heard this every time you "speak to a socialist, environmentalist or watched TV," you'd think you'd have a good answer by now.

The natives occupied this land before there were Europeans. If property rights are a universal, timeless, inalienable right, Europeans took that land from the natives by force, not by rule of law. The natives did not sell the land to us. We took it.

So how do you reconcile taking land with the universal, timeless, inalienable right to own property?

Boy you skipped ALOT of my reply didnt you? And dont try to correct a wrong with what you consider to be another wrong.

 

[EriktheRed]

I'm inclined to vote no, but I'm beginning to doubt it makes any difference anymore.

 

[Toro]

I will start with number two because I hear this arguement everytime I speak to a socialist, enviromentalist, or watch link tv. America is not the British. There you go. Weve had hardly any imperialism in the U.S. and nearly all of it was done by constituional disrespecting progressivs. Never try to justify a wrong with what you consider to be another wrong.

That's not an answer. If you've heard this every time you "speak to a socialist, environmentalist or watched TV," you'd think you'd have a good answer by now.

The natives occupied this land before there were Europeans. If property rights are a universal, timeless, inalienable right, Europeans took that land from the natives by force, not by rule of law. The natives did not sell the land to us. We took it.

So how do you reconcile taking land with the universal, timeless, inalienable right to own property?

Boy you skipped ALOT of my reply didnt you? And dont try to correct a wrong with what you consider to be another wrong.

So are you saying that taking the natives' land was wrong? I went through your entire answer and you didn't mention it.

 

[Publius1787]

That's not an answer. If you've heard this every time you "speak to a socialist, environmentalist or watched TV," you'd think you'd have a good answer by now.

The natives occupied this land before there were Europeans. If property rights are a universal, timeless, inalienable right, Europeans took that land from the natives by force, not by rule of law. The natives did not sell the land to us. We took it.

So how do you reconcile taking land with the universal, timeless, inalienable right to own property?

Boy you skipped ALOT of my reply didnt you? And dont try to correct a wrong with what you consider to be another wrong.

So are you saying that taking the natives' land was wrong? I went through your entire answer and you didn't mention it.

Dont try to justify a wrong with what you beleive to be another wrong. Its a principle that is extreamly conveiniant with stawmwnr red herring arguements like yours. The Idea that since this was done here it should be done elsewhere doesent hold up in any arguement. I hope you havent widdled down to this.

 

[Toro]

Boy you skipped ALOT of my reply didnt you? And dont try to correct a wrong with what you consider to be another wrong.

So are you saying that taking the natives' land was wrong? I went through your entire answer and you didn't mention it.

Dont try to justify a wrong with what you beleive to be another wrong. Its a principle that is extreamly conveiniant with stawmwnr red herring arguements like yours. The Idea that since this was done here it should be done elsewhere doesent hold up in any arguement. I hope you havent widdled down to this.

I assume that your answer - which you are trying assiduously to avoid - is "Yes, we stole the natives' land." I was hoping you would come out and actually say it so I could rep you for logical consistency. But you're trying really, really hard not to because it's problematic to your implicit defense of American mythology.

BTW are all women created equal? Are women equal to men?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The only real check on federal power was the ability of the states to secede if they got fed up. Lincoln destroyed that ability when he launched his invasion of the Confederacy.

States have no authority to secede; even the Confederacy recognized that. The only real check on federal power is an informed, vigilant electorate of good moral substance holding its elected leaders accountable for their fidelity to the Constitution.

To deny the right to secede is to deny the right of self government and democratic republicanism. If a state descides it wants out, well, in the words of Thomas Jefferson on secession, Go in peace. You cannot tie the bonds of future generations to the descisions of your ancestors wothout allowing them to change it.

The states relinquished their right to secede when they obligated themselves to the law of the Constitution,

via ratification.

The Supremacy Clause prohibits secession; the States accepted the legitimacy and authority of the Supremacy Clause when they agreed to ratify the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

The states relinquished their right to secede when they obligated themselves to the law of the Constitution,

via ratification.

Nope. Where does the Constitution say the states relinquished their right to secede?

The Constitution is a contract. And there is no clause in that contract that says a state cannot secede. The Supreme court has ruled that a state cannot surrender any of it's sovereign powers except in unmistakable terms. The only way an attribute of sovereignty can be contracted away by the federal government or state governments is for it to be "specifically surrendered in terms which admit of no other reasonable interpretation." In Stone v. Mississippi, 1879, the court established the long-standing doctrine that a government "may not, in any event, contract to surrender certain reserved powers," as repeated in United States v. Winstar, 1996.

The Supremacy Clause prohibits secession; the States accepted the legitimacy and authority of the Supremacy Clause when they agreed to ratify the Constitution.

There is no "Supremacy Clause" in he Constitution, and the states never relinquished any such authority.

 

[Charles_Main]

Not going to get many Libs to agree to this right now lol. The Republicans just had one of the most massive sweeps of State Legislatures in our History. I am betting if you let the state houses choose senators right now. The Republicans would be in firm control of the Senate.

 

[Charles_Main]

The voters would never stand for not being able to elect their Senators

We have enough back room dealing thank-you

That makes no sense.

One of the reasons why appointing Senators was scrapped was because of cronyism and payoffs in the selection process.

Maybe we should go back to having a king. In fact, y'all should just scrap that whole revolution thing and come back into the Commonwealth fold and be ruled from London, just like in the good ol days.

Your an idiot. Equating wanting to go back to having the peoples elected representatives in each state choose senators with going back to having a king? Really. Despite what you have been told, Conservatism is not as simple as wanting to go back to "the old Days" Modern Conservatism is about a healthy respect for the Constitution and the intentions of the people who wrote it.

Personally I don't think repealing the 17th Amendment and reverting to the old way would achieve the desired goal. Which I assume is attempting to return some balance to the balance of power between the Fed and States.

As long as Senators think of Party first, and their State Second the State's will have no real Representation in the Legislator of the united states. The Federal Government has nearly completely subjugated the states. The Intended Balance of Power is gone. We inch closer and Closer to the founders worst fear. An All powerful, Over Bearing, Inescapable Federal Government.

 

[Toro]

Maybe we should go back to having a king. In fact, y'all should just scrap that whole revolution thing and come back into the Commonwealth fold and be ruled from London, just like in the good ol days.

Your an idiot. Equating wanting to go back to having the peoples elected representatives in each state choose senators with going back to having a king? Really. Despite what you have been told, Conservatism is not as simple as wanting to go back to "the old Days" Modern Conservatism is about a healthy respect for the Constitution and the intentions of the people who wrote it.

hy·per·bo·le
   /haɪˈpɜrbəli/ Show Spelled[hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
–noun Rhetoric .
1.
obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2.
an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”​

Hyperbole.

Learn to recognize it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The states relinquished their right to secede when they obligated themselves to the law of the Constitution,

via ratification.

Nope. Where does the Constitution say the states relinquished their right to secede?

The Constitution is a contract. And there is no clause in that contract that says a state cannot secede. The Supreme court has ruled that a state cannot surrender any of it's sovereign powers except in unmistakable terms. The only way an attribute of sovereignty can be contracted away by the federal government or state governments is for it to be "specifically surrendered in terms which admit of no other reasonable interpretation." In Stone v. Mississippi, 1879, the court established the long-standing doctrine that a government "may not, in any event, contract to surrender certain reserved powers," as repeated in United States v. Winstar, 1996.

The Supremacy Clause prohibits secession; the States accepted the legitimacy and authority of the Supremacy Clause when they agreed to ratify the Constitution.

There is no "Supremacy Clause" in he Constitution, and the states never relinquished any such authority.

SUPREMACY CLAUSE

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Paragraph 2

 

[NYcarbineer]

Future Americans have the ability to change the laws through electing representatives that will do so. They also have the means to alter the Constitution, if they deem it wise or necessary to do so. States do not, however, have the right to secede from the union.

Where does the Constitution say that?

It doesn't have to say that. Secession requires a unilateral breaching of the contractual obligations of the Constitution, to which the states agreed. You can't just walk away from a contract you've signed.

 

[Sheldon]

Pop quiz: Who made these comments?

“I’ve got this thing and it’s fucking golden... I’m not giving it up for fucking nothing. I’m not going to do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there.” ... "It's a fucking valuable thing... you don't just give it away for nothing!" ... "You're telling me that I have to suck it up for two years and do nothing and give this motherfucker his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him."


Of course, our esteemed state legislators would never behave in such an untoward manner.

You are speaking about Governor Rod Blagojevitch, now on trial, about a decision he was empowered to make single-handedly.
Yeah, that's a good argument. FAIL.

It's an excellent and recent example of how a person in a position of power would be tempted by leverage to get kickbacks. Or do you really think only a governor would be susceptible, and that a handful of sway moderates would be immune to these tactics? It's amazing to me to look at the poll and see people who say the government is incompetent, out of touch with the public and corrupt--which I agree with to an extent--advocate for an insular system that has been proven (see: 1860's +) to foster bribery and corruption.

 

[Toro]

Pop quiz: Who made these comments?

“I’ve got this thing and it’s fucking golden... I’m not giving it up for fucking nothing. I’m not going to do it. And, and I can always use it. I can parachute me there.” ... "It's a fucking valuable thing... you don't just give it away for nothing!" ... "You're telling me that I have to suck it up for two years and do nothing and give this motherfucker his senator. Fuck him. For nothing? Fuck him."


Of course, our esteemed state legislators would never behave in such an untoward manner.

You are speaking about Governor Rod Blagojevitch, now on trial, about a decision he was empowered to make single-handedly.
Yeah, that's a good argument. FAIL.

It's an excellent and recent example of how a person in a position of power would be tempted by leverage to get kickbacks. Or do you really think only a governor would be susceptible, and that a handful of sway moderates would be immune to these tactics? It's amazing to me to look at the poll and see people who say the government is incompetent, out of touch with the public and corrupt--which I agree with to an extent--advocate for an insular system that has been proven (see: 1860's +) to foster bribery and corruption.

Great points. Gubmint is incompetent and corrupt. So we are going to solve this by giving gubmint ...

... more power and discretion!

 

[Sheldon]

Future Americans have the ability to change the laws through electing representatives that will do so. They also have the means to alter the Constitution, if they deem it wise or necessary to do so. States do not, however, have the right to secede from the union.

Where does the Constitution say that?

It doesn't have to say that. Secession requires a unilateral breaching of the contractual obligations of the Constitution, to which the states agreed. You can't just walk away from a contract you've signed.

Just like James Madison pointed out, a contract involves two parties, and if a party has a right to walk away from that contract the other party has just as much a right to hold them to it--Civil War.

The essential difference between a free Government and Governments not free, is that the former is founded in compact, the parties to which are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither of them therefore can have a greater fight to break off from the bargain, than the other or others have to hold them to it. And certainly there is nothing in the Virginia resolutions of –98, adverse to this principle, which is that of common sense and common justice. The fallacy which draws a different conclusion from them lies in confounding a single party, with the parties to the Constitutional compact of the United States. The latter having made the compact may do what they will with it. The former as one only of the parties, owes fidelity to it, till released by consent, or absolved by an intolerable abuse of the power created.

James Madison on Secession « Almost Chosen People

 

[Polk]

We basically have a problem of too much democracy and not enough responsibility in this country. That's why we're in this mess: everyone wants gov't bennies but thinks someone else should pay for them.
While "consent of the governed" is the cornerstone of our government, that doesn't mean mob rule, which is pretty much what we have.

We don't have enough responsibility, but that's due to too little democracy, not too much.

 

[Polk]

The voters would never stand for not being able to elect their Senators

We have enough back room dealing thank-you

Nobody asked whether it was politically feasible. It probably isn't. Any more than property qualifications, which I also support.

Property qualifications are another stupid idea. Even accepting the premise that voting should be based on contribution to society (which is detestable), would you seriously argue some guy making 20k a year that owns a half-acre of land with a trailer oshould have more rights than a guy making 200k a year, but who rents an apartment because he lives in a large city?

 

[Polk]

Exactly. Mob rul is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid by having the senate elected by the state legeslatures.

The founding fathers didn't want women, blacks or poor people voting either. This isn't the 18th century FFS.

I find it absolutely stunning that the right would even debate restricting voting. When people around the world think of America, they think freedom, which is synonymous with democracy. They don't think "Ruled by landholders." That is what people are trying to escape when they come here. There is no freedom greater than choosing those who rule over you.

How is restoring the State's checks and balances restricting the vote? No one is suggesting that women or anyone else not vote. We are suggesting that the States once again have a check in congress as they should.

I'd go in the exact opposite direction. Why should there be a Senate in the first place? What makes arbitrary lines on map so sacrosanct?

 

[Polk]

It's always seemed counter-intuitive why three-fourths of the state legislatures would support an amendment that removed their power to choose the Senators.

I can understand why the founders wanted the Senate to be insulated from the general population. But at the same time that system allowed even more bureaucratic back-scratching, and I like being able to have a direct say in my Senators... so I have to say no.

The argument that it allowed states a greater say on federal appropriations is a good one though. Without the 17th we may not have the "legal age at 21 or no highway funds" crap going on now, for an example.

Then why have a house and a senate? Sence their both elected by the people what is the difference between them? Election terms? Constitutional duties? That can easily be remedied by one body. Instead you have states forced to pass laws that may be determined not in their interest in order to get the money back from the federal government that was taken from the people in the state. Its extortion, its criminal, its not democracy, and voids the 10th Amendment. If you vote is forced on anything other than principle then you cannot vote your concious, the democratic process is broken, and that is what we have in the state legeslatures today.

District size. Which is why a small minority gets to lord over the rest of the nation.