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

[Publius1787]

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.

A point that sliped my mind. Thanks.

 

[Publius1787]

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?

A point that is based of justifying a wrong on whats perceived to be another wrong is mute. I did not want to get in to a debate of American history because it would have been a change of subject and bad for both of us. Byt the principle, no matter what the answer you wanted, is as true as the wind driven snow. Facts are stubborn things. I will not adhear toward your fallacies and false misdirections of descussions for some pritty colors at the top of my posts.

 

[Publius1787]

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.

I dont not have the time to go state by state but some (because I have not read them all) reserved the right to secede when they accept the U.S. Constitution. History is a bitch aint it?

WE the Delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide thereon, DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any capacity, by the President or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes: and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified by any authority of the United States.

 

[bripat9643]

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

All that says is that when the federal government approves a treaty, it has the same force of law as any other legislation passed by Congress. It certainly doesn't say that states cannot secede. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that states cannot contractually surrender the slightest fraction of their sovereignty unless the fact is stated in "unmistakable terms." I've already quoted a couple of the cases where that was part of the decision.

 

[Publius1787]

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

All that says is that when the federal government approves a treaty, it has the same force of law as any other legislation passed by Congress. It certainly doesn't say that states cannot secede. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled numerous times that states cannot contractually surrender the slightest fraction of their sovereignty unless such the terms are stated in "unmistakable terms." I've already quoted a couple of the cases where that was part of the decision.

Bingo!

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Wrong. The Supreme Court has ruled that it does have to say that. I have quote the cases where it ruled exactly that.

Secession requires a unilateral breaching of the contractual obligations of the Constitution, to which the states agreed.

Nope. The states never agreed they would never secede. There is no such language in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that a state cannot surrender any part of its sovereignty in a contract with the federal government or another state unless the fact is stated in "unmistakable terms."

You can't just walk away from a contract you've signed.

You can if it doesn't say you can't, and the Constitution doesn't say the states can't secede.

 

[Luissa]

Pretty funny that some of the same people with a near paranoid mistrust of all things "gubmint" and spend time bemoaning it's corruption and incompetence are somehow in favor of handing over the power to appoint Senators to it.

 

[bripat9643]

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

A point that is based on justifying a wrong on whats perceived to be another wrong is mute. I did not want to get in to a debate of American history because it would have been a change of subject and bad for both of us. Byt the principle, no matter what the answer you wanted, is as true as the wind driven snow. Facts are stubborn things.

Whenever you discuss the historical facts of the American Constitution, liberals always want to divert the discussion to every wrong ever committed by this Republic. That's because they know they are wrong. They can't win on the facts, so they attack the country which they claim to love.

 

[Publius1787]

Pretty funny that some of the same people with a near paranoid mistrust of all things "gubmint" and spend time bemoaning it's corruption and incompetence are somehow in favor of handing over the power to appoint Senators to it.

All politics are local and people trust theur state and local government more than they do the federal government. Plus, with state governments, you can vote with your feet. Further limiting the federal government is a mistrust in government.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

The lines aren't "arbitrary." The original 13 states were independent nations. The only reason they agreed to the Constitution was the promise that they would retain their sovereignty. The Senate was one mechanism they created to insure their interests were preserved. All the other states were admitted on the same terms as the original 13, so their sovereignty was also supposed to be guaranteed. The 17the Amendment helped to destroy that sovereignty because Senators were no longer beholden to States. they were simply beholden to a mob.

 

[Publius1787]

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

A point that is based on justifying a wrong on whats perceived to be another wrong is mute. I did not want to get in to a debate of American history because it would have been a change of subject and bad for both of us. Byt the principle, no matter what the answer you wanted, is as true as the wind driven snow. Facts are stubborn things.

Whenever you discuss the historical facts of the American Constitution, liberals always want to divert the discussion to every wrong ever committed by this Republic. That's because they know they are wrong. They can't win on the facts, so they attack the country which they claim to love.

Yes. They want to destroy the document thats based on individual liberty and natural law in the advocasy of collectivism which is tyranical by definition. Thus they attempt to change the meaning of the constitution through judicial activism because its easeyer than amending the constitution or convincing the american people that socialism is the way to go. To help them in the process they claim the constitution is outdated and changes with the times without so much as an amendment. In order to get away with it they deamonize our founders and try to raise contradictions so that they can have a precedent thats based upon a historical wrong or whats perceived to be a historical wrong so they too can commit a wrong. The problem for the socialists/communists/liberals/progressivs (there is little to no difference these days) is that their red herring strawman fallacys only go but so far.

 

[bripat9643]

Property qualifications are another stupid idea. Even accepting the premise that voting should be based on contribution to society (which is detestable),

Why is it "detestable?" It seems perfectly reasonable and sensible to me. Why should some useless tic who is a burden on his fellow men have the same say in governing our country as someone who invents a polio vaccine or the light bulb?

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?

I wouldn't make land ownership the test for voting. However, I think collecting a check from the government for any reason other than a sale of goods or services should bar you from voting.

 

[Toro]

Property qualifications are another stupid idea. Even accepting the premise that voting should be based on contribution to society (which is detestable),

Why is it "detestable?" It seems perfectly reasonable and sensible to me. Why should some useless tic who is a burden on his fellow men have the same say in governing our country as someone who invents a polio vaccine or the light bulb?

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?

I wouldn't make land ownership the test for voting. However, I think collecting a check from the government for any reason other than a sale of goods or services should bar you from voting.

What about social security?

 

[Toro]

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?

A point that is based of justifying a wrong on whats perceived to be another wrong is mute. I did not want to get in to a debate of American history because it would have been a change of subject and bad for both of us. Byt the principle, no matter what the answer you wanted, is as true as the wind driven snow. Facts are stubborn things. I will not adhear toward your fallacies and false misdirections of descussions for some pritty colors at the top of my posts.

You keep obfuscating and avoiding the answer.

 

[Toro]

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

A point that is based on justifying a wrong on whats perceived to be another wrong is mute. I did not want to get in to a debate of American history because it would have been a change of subject and bad for both of us. Byt the principle, no matter what the answer you wanted, is as true as the wind driven snow. Facts are stubborn things.

Whenever you discuss the historical facts of the American Constitution, liberals always want to divert the discussion to every wrong ever committed by this Republic. That's because they know they are wrong. They can't win on the facts, so they attack the country which they claim to love.

Wrong. Again.

You resort to base tribalism and wrap yourself in the flag every time you get cornered because you can't, or won't, answer.

The premise is simple, and I've repeated it several times in this thread but which you and PI 2.0 have not addressed directly. The Constitution was written in the 18th century based on an 18th century moral construct. The ideals of the American constitution are the most noble ideals anywhere IMHO. But you want, or appear to want, to adhere to a strict interpretation of the constitution, as written 230 years ago. If that's your argument, then, for example, where does say that all "women" are created equal? And if it doesn't, and we have a strict interpretation of the constitution, are women subservient to men under the law? Or, if you don't believe in the strict, literal interpretation of the constitution, and instead attempt to read into what the founding fathers were getting at and apply those principles to today's society, you would read that "All men AND women are created equal." Likewise, if you apply 18th century morals to today, is slavery acceptable today? Because it was acceptable in the 1780s since at least a dozen founding fathers owned slaves at the time. If it is not acceptable today, even though the founding fathers were not willing to extend the rights of men to all men, then how can you argue in the strict, literal interpretation of the constitution?

Now, an intelligent person would realize this is not an attack on the founding fathers but is rather a philosophical refutation of the ideas propagated by you and your ilk today. So you can mindlessly huff and puff about this argument being an attack on America, or you can try to answer the question intelligently.

 

[bripat9643]

I wouldn't make land ownership the test for voting. However, I think collecting a check from the government for any reason other than a sale of goods or services should bar you from voting.

What about social security?

yep, I would definitely include that. One of the biggest problems this country has is the fact that the greedy geezers are not going to give one cent of their ill gotten loot to spare their children and grandchildren from servitude.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Where does it say - in the Constitution, the state Constitutions, or any law for that matter - that states don't have the right to secede? Hell, two states - Arizona and Texas - have the right to secede written into THEIR Constitutions, and refused to join the US unless that right was confirmed. Furthermore, my reading of the Constitution turns up the 10th Amendment, which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution says nothing about preventing states from seceding, or delegating to the US any power regarding secession either way, it seems to me that that power is, then, reserved to the States and the people (people can, of course, remove themselves from the United States at will).

 

[Polk]

Pretty funny that some of the same people with a near paranoid mistrust of all things "gubmint" and spend time bemoaning it's corruption and incompetence are somehow in favor of handing over the power to appoint Senators to it.

Rather bizarre, if you ask me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

California, for example, has no more right to secede from the United States than Orange County has to secede from California, or Los Angeles from Orange County, for that matter. Lincoln's views were in line with the Founders. James Madison, for example, spent the later part of his life repudiating the notion of sucession.

So West Virginia shouldn't be a state, because pieces of states have no right to secede? That's what West Virginia did, around the same time Lincoln decided he had the right to conquer territory and force it to be part of the US whether it wanted to or not: it seceded from Virginia and became its own state.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Youve just outlawed represenative government.

Poppycock.

The federal government is beholden to the People. The state governments are also beholden to the People. Both are governered by the People's Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. The People did not grant states the right to leave the Union at their discretion. No state has the legal right to do so. No nation in history has given its members the ability to tear it apart. The Union is perpetual. To permit any state to leave it whenever that state isn't happy (the Hartford Convention, the Confederacy) would be an invitation to national suicide. The Founders certainly did not intend to leave such an unstable legacy to their children's children.

Individuals possess the natural right of revolution. That is not in dispute. That is the right expressed in the Declaration of Independence. States however, have no right to detach themselves from the larger body politic of the American nation. Individuals, not states, have the right to alter or abolish their governments as they see fit. Denying a state the ability to rend the union of all the states apart at its discretion actually protects representative government. Sucession would be the real threat.

I have another question. Is it only OUR government that has this mystical "no exit" quality to it, where once you're in, you can't leave? Or is that ALL governments and nations that are indivisible, with no right to secede? Because if so, what does that mean for our own Revolution, where the colonies left the country they were part of - Great Britain - and formed their own? As a matter of fact, I believe many if not most countries got their start that way.