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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Sovereignty in what sense? The states retain a limited sovereignty only.

 

[Publius1787]

You keep obfuscating and avoiding the answer.

How is your question relevent to the topic we were descussing? Well, your trying to right a wrong with what you perceive to be another wrong. That evidence is inadmissable. Can you qualify your question? Of course not! Its irrelevent. Unles you can establish relevency. Which you cant!

Thanks for not answering.

Yeah keep attempting to divert the topic. A wrong does not correct another wrong.

 

[Publius1787]

Thomas Jefferson:

First Inaugural Address said,

"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left to combat it."

letter to John C. Breckinridge,Aug. 12, 1803):

“…Besides, if it should become the great interest of those nations to separate from this, if their happiness should depend on it so strongly as to induce them to go through that convulsion, why should the Atlantic States dread it? But especially why should we, their present inhabitants, take side in such a question?…The future inhabitants of the Atlantic & Missipi [sic] States will be our sons. We leave them in distinct but bordering establishments. We think we see their happiness in their union, & we wish it. Events may prove it otherwise; and if they see their interest in separation, why should we take side with our Atlantic rather than our Missipi descendants? It is the elder and the younger son differing. God bless them both, & keep them in union, if it be for their good, but separate them, if it be better.”

letter to To Dr. Joseph Priestley, Jan. 29, 1804

“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part. Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”

letter to Secretary of War William Crawford

“If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative, to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying “let us separate." I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.”

letter to former U.S. Attorney General Richard Rush

“The experiment of separation would soon prove to both that they had mutually miscalculated their best interests. And even were the parties in Congress to secede in a passion, the soberer people would call a convention and cement again the severance attempted by the insanity of their functionaries.”

At Virginia's ratification convention, the delegates said,

"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.

Federalist Paper 39, James Madison

The father of the Constitution, cleared up what "the people" meant, saying the proposed Constitution would be subject to ratification by the people, "not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."

Yes, I know these citations, they’re interesting, quaint, and moot.

I don’t see what they have to do with the case law I’ve posted, however.

Texas v. White is settled law: per the Constitution states may not secede from the Union. McCulloch v. Maryland is also settled law: again, per the Constitution, the 10th Amendment does not authorize states to secede from the Union, it does not authorize the states to ignore, reject, or otherwise nullify Federal legislation, the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states, and Ex Parte Young (1908) authorizes Federal enforcement of the Constitution.

If it’s your position that the above case law manifests some sort of ‘Constitutional heresy,’ that it is in conflict with the original intent of the Framers, then your only recourse is to have the Supreme Court overturn the above actions or amend the Constitution accordingly.

Yes, if it were true it is no surprise that a federal body is attempting to preserve itself. No surprise at all. But the denial of the right of secession is denying democratic republicanism. If a state wants out and its people wants out it is a violation of the laws of nature and natures god to force them to stay. A government by force is not a government at all and secession is one hell of a great check and balance. But if a state were to secede today who would stop them? You? Would the media demand that the state be invaded and overthrown? No sir!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sovereignty in what sense? The states retain a limited sovereignty only.

It doesn’t matter – it’s an ignorant post, like all the rest.

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution and Federal law. Period.

That some on the right continue to invest in the canard of ‘state sovereignty’ is telling and pathetic.

As for repealing the 17th Amendment, advocated by mostly the right, be careful what you with for: a more deliberate body of lawmakers not subject to the capricious whims of the voters is more likely to block extreme measures from the House, regardless of either body’s political composition.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yes, if it were true it is no surprise that a federal body is attempting to preserve itself. No surprise at all. But the denial of the right of secession is denying democratic republicanism. If a state wants out and its people wants out it is a violation of the laws of nature and natures god to force them to stay. A government by force is not a government at all and secession is one hell of a great check and balance. But if a state were to secede today who would stop them? You? Would the media demand that the state be invaded and overthrown? No sir!

Per Texas v. White when a state enters the Union it also enters into a contract with the other states and peoples of those states. Contracts are not to be violated or broken – and when they are there are consequences.

If a state wants out and its people wants out…

How would this be determined? By referendum? And what of those who didn’t vote to leave the Union? What of their rights? Will they be compelled to leave their state, homes, families, and jobs?

This is why the Constitution prohibits secession, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And you speak as if the states are composed of homogeneous populations – they’re not. Each state is as diverse as the Nation is as a whole.

But if a state were to secede today who would stop them?

A state wouldn’t secede today, there’d be no point. And any perceived ‘advantage’ would be heavily outweighed by the many disadvantages.

 

[bripat9643]

Sovereignty in what sense? The states retain a limited sovereignty only.

the only sovereignty they relinquished is the specifically enumerated powers listed in the Constitution. They retain all sovereign powers not mentioned. secession is one of those powers. That's the meaning of the 10th Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

Per Texas v. White when a state enters the Union it also enters into a contract with the other states and peoples of those states. Contracts are not to be violated or broken – and when they are there are consequences.

Texas v. White is horseshit. I've already shown that the decision is simply wrong. It's based on premises that are clearly not true. For example that Texas was a state at the time the decision was rendered. Texas was clearly not a state. It was conquered territory. It had no Senators or Congressmen, and it was ruled by the US military.

If a state wants out and its people wants out…

How would this be determined? By referendum? And what of those who didn’t vote to leave the Union? What of their rights? Will they be compelled to leave their state, homes, families, and jobs?

This issue was settled shortly before the Civil War. since when do libs give a damn about the rights of the minority? what about the rights of the people who voted against Obama?

This is why the Constitution prohibits secession, to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. And you speak as if the states are composed of homogeneous populations – they’re not. Each state is as diverse as the Nation is as a whole.

ROFL! the constitution does not prohibit secession. If the minority has a right to be "protected" from secession, then it also had a right to be protected from ratification of the Constitution, which makes the document invalid. It also has a right to be protected from Oamacare, social security, Medicare, Medicare, welfare and every other outrage perpetrated by Congress.

Your idiocies are up to their usual puissance.

But if a state were to secede today who would stop them?

A state wouldn’t secede today, there’d be no point. And any perceived ‘advantage’ would be heavily outweighed by the many disadvantages.

You didn't answer the question. In typical fashion, you ran away.

 

[bripat9643]

Sovereignty in what sense? The states retain a limited sovereignty only.

It doesn’t matter – it’s an ignorant post, like all the rest.

Liberal dictionary:
=====================================
ignorant - knows the facts better than a liberal

The states are subject to the Federal Constitution and Federal law. Period.

That proposition isn't being debated here, but you're too stupid to know that.

That some on the right continue to invest in the canard of ‘state sovereignty’ is telling and pathetic.

"telling" of what?

As for repealing the 17th Amendment, advocated by mostly the right, be careful what you with for: a more deliberate body of lawmakers not subject to the capricious whims of the voters is more likely to block extreme measures from the House, regardless of either body’s political composition.

You mean "extreme measures" like any cut in spending?

ROFL! Hardly.

 

[bripat9643]

You apparently missed this part of the series in the above:

and the Laws of the United States

there I made it bigger for you. The Supremacy Clause is not just about 'treaties' and whatever you're blathering on about nonsensically.

The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land.

In the constitution, the term "the United States" does not refer to the federal government. It refers to the states collectively. The laws of the United states are the laws of all the states. If you don't believe it, then look at the clause about treason. It defines treason as making war against them [the states]. It does not mention the federal government.

Secession would de facto reject the Supremacy of the Constitution, therefore it cannot be done constitutionally/legally.

The constitution never mentions the term "sovereignty" and the people who signed it did reject the notion that the constitution destroyed the sovereignty of the states. It's an historically documented fact.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, I know these citations, they’re interesting, quaint, and moot.

Liberal dictionary:
======================================
quaint - Historical facts that disprove liberal humbug theories

I don’t see what they have to do with the case law I’ve posted, however.

We know. That would require the ability to commit logic.

Texas v. White is settled law: per the Constitution states may not secede from the Union. McCulloch v. Maryland is also settled law: again, per the Constitution, the 10th Amendment does not authorize states to secede from the Union, it does not authorize the states to ignore, reject, or otherwise nullify Federal legislation, the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states, and Ex Parte Young (1908) authorizes Federal enforcement of the Constitution.

Liberal dictionary:
======================================
Settled Law - court decisions that liberals agree with.
Offense against humanity - court decisions that liberals disagree with.

Texas v. White proved only that Salmon P. Chase and the rest of the Lincoln appointees were political hacks who were put on the bench to provide legal cover for Lincoln's illegal invasion of the Confederate States. The case is so full of holes and contradictions that it's impossible to believe anyone could take it seriously. However, it's the only legal fig leaf that Lincoln apologists like you have to excuse the crimes of your idol.

If it’s your position that the above case law manifests some sort of ‘Constitutional heresy,’ that it is in conflict with the original intent of the Framers, then your only recourse is to have the Supreme Court overturn the above actions or amend the Constitution accordingly.

We know what the recourse is. That isn't the subject up for debate here.

 

[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.

Then what goods or services did you sell when the government gave you a check representing the tax credit you got just for having kids?

The only people who get a check for having kids are women collecting welfare.

Social security is a check from the government. A tax deduction is not a check from the government. It's a reduction in the amount the government extracts from your hide. a tax credit is just another form of tax deduction unless it reduces the amount you owe to less than zero.

Only gullible morons are buying the leftwing fiction that tax cuts are the same as benefits and subsidies.

 

[Truthmatters]

How can anyone who loves democracy want even more power removed from the people?

 

[bripat9643]

How can anyone who loves democracy want even more power removed from the people?

Democracy is only a bad solution to a difficult problem. Only fools love it.

 

[Too Tall]

And you'd use FUCKInG GUbZmint if you appointed Senators. FFS we appoint Senators in Canada and it's a disaster. True, the system is different, but the idea that those appointed wouldn't be cronies who've donated a ton of money to the politicians is hilarious. I love how ambassadors are selected in this country BTW. Write big cheques and you can live in a comfy residence in Dublin on the taxpayers dime. As if it would be any different in the Senate.

The system is different, but somehow or another we'd end up with the same results?

we've already gotten the same results. why do you think the 17th amendment came into being?

rich guys buying seats in the senate.

like this one

William A. Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or maybe like these in 2009

November 25, 2009, 2:42 pm
Your Senator Is (Probably) a Millionaire


About two-thirds of United States senators were millionaires in 2008, according to a recent analysis of politicians’ fortunes conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The research organization, which also tracks political donations, recently analyzed the assets and liabilities of lawmakers based on 2008’s required annual financial disclosures. The center estimated each politician’s net worth by adding together the lawmaker’s range of assets and then subtracted the range of liabilities.

The midpoint of that resulting range was used to rank the politicians.

In the Senate, 68 legislators were estimated to be worth at least $1 million, led by Herb Kohl, a Democrat from Wisconsin, who was worth an estimated $214,570,011 in 2008. The average net worth across the Senate was $13,989,022.98.

Your Senator Is (Probably) a Millionaire - NYTimes.com

 

[Contumacious]

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

NOTHING -other than federal government thuggery - prevent the states from electing the senate.

The so-called 17th Amendment is null and fucking void.

US Constitution

Article Five

.....no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of it's equal suffrage in the Senate.

Rejecting the amendment: Utah (February 26, 1913)

States having not acted on the 17th amendment: Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, Florida.

.

 

[Polk]

The assembly of the rebel traitors in Virginia was not the lawful legislature of the state of Virginia.

This just gets more hilarious with every post. Some puppet legislature setup by Lincoln and his cronies is the legal legislature of Virginia? Do you really expect anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature to swallow that? When did the entire people of virginia have an opportunity to vote on the members of this legislature? How could it possibly be legitimate if not all the citizens had an opportunity to vote on it?

Furthermore, the Constitution defines treason this way:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Note that it says "them" [the states]. Treason consists of waging war against the states - any state, not against the federal government. If anyone was guilty of treason, it was Lincoln and the federal government. Lincoln invaded Virginia. The later did not invade any Union state until after hostilities had commenced.

Also, the Constitution does not state that. It states the federal government will not create a new state out of the territory of another "without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned". The legislature of the state concern ratified the decision.

It most certainly did no such thing. The legally elected legislature of Virginia resided in Richmond. Any claims to the contrary are simply a bald faced lie.

Since the states are not referenced in the clause, the clause cannot be referring to the states. That reading ignores basic English grammar.

And I'm sorry that you don't understand why the legislature in Richmond is no longer a legal body at that point during which it's engaged in active insurrection.

 

[Polk]

Lincoln's biggest flaw was not executing Davis, Lee, and the other ringleaders for treason.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Lincoln's biggest flaw was not executing Davis, Lee, and the other ringleaders for treason.

Lincoln's hope was for reconciliation. It probably would have worked too if he'd lived to push through the entirety of his plan for the South. His assassination, compounded by the unwillingness of his successor to actively pursue Reconstruction and civil rights set us back by decades at the least.

Though to be honest, I'm at the point I'm wishing Lincoln had just let them go. They'd have become a welfare state subsisting on Europe's handouts and have been begging to be let back in within a few generations.

 

[Contumacious]

Lincoln's biggest flaw was not executing Davis, Lee, and the other ringleaders for treason.

Davis biggest flaw was not executing Lincoln and the other ringleaders for treason.

,

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Dunno... that is a good question because I like the fact that not all governmental officials are chosen the same way... this way not every official/position is elected by merely popular vote... keeping more in line with the balance of power..

However... this was changed via the amendment process, which I fully support... unlike the changes our government loves to do without constitutional amendment...

So... I guess what I am trying to say.. is that I would support the old way or the current way without much of a gripe... as long as if the change back to the old system would be facilitated thru the amendment process

This.

Folks really supporting going back to the State Legislatures ought to read up on the history as to why it changes. I mean really read up on it instead of shouting "PROGRESSIVE COMMUNISTS TREASON!"

Many of the States had already opted for direct election foregoing their right to select Senators prior to the 17th. There were quite a few instances of States unable to actually fill seats for months or even years. Corruption was fairly rampant.

There's also the issue of the general lack of competency of State Legislatures. Ideally those would be experienced educated individuals who would select the State's Representation. In practice, I've yet to see a State Legislature that wasn't comprised of a majority of idiots. State Legislatures tend to lack any sense of long term planning and the Legislators tend to be fairly inept at understanding the Federal and State Constitutions. Nevermind the fact that they're often unskilled at writing or reading legal contracts.

Part of that isn't their fault. State Legislators tend to be businessmen and teachers that are only part time politicians. While that sounds ideal, the issue is that a part time Legislator doesn't have the time to read the thick, often poorly written laws they're supposed to be debating. As they tend to lack legal training themselves, they're dependent on others to actually write and interpret their own laws. We could fill pages and pages with examples of State laws that have been struck down, repealed, or that contain hilarious unintended consequences.

The strongest argument for a repeal of the 17th you usually see is the "Founders did it that way." I'm skeptical of that. While the Founders were generally brilliant men, they were a large group that rarely agreed on anything. The selection of Senators, and the actual existence of the Senate in the first place, was a compromise, just as the 3/5's decision was too. I'd imagine that more than one Founder probably ended up regretting that selection method, or at least would have if they'd seen where it lead in the late 1800's to early 1900's.

That isn't a knock on the Founders. As I said, they're an amazing example of what a group of really brilliant men with a common goal can accomplish, but again, they were still men. The Constitution had a few really serious oversights as first drafted (the role of the SCOTUS, the question of Unconstitutional Law, the Line of Secession, the mathematical impossibility of a fair apportionment etc.). They knew that could happen so they left behind an amendment process to fix the errors as they popped up. Which is what the 17th Amendment does.

If the 17th itself is a mistake, we have a process to fix that. That's what's really amazing about the document we use to govern this great nation.