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

[Sheldon]

I say we just cut the crap and get ourselves a House of Lords. They can wear those funny wigs.

 

[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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If voting was an unaleinable natural right then everyone in the world would have the right to vote in american elections by no other virtue other than being on american soil. If voting was a right please show me where in the constitution is this right guarenteed to everyone. If voting is a right then states could not forbid felons from voting.

Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Says nothing about privledge

It says that voting cannot be denied ON ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that the states can deny voting privilages but not for that purpose. Are you really this stupid?

So by your logic there's no such thing as the right to bear arms, since that right can be restricted or limited.

jeezus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Which one specifically said that he did not beleive in inaleinable rights for all men? Oh there are a few who made comments along those lines. BUT WHAT ARE YOU REFERENCING YOUR FALSE PERCEPTION OF HISTORY FROM? Slavery almost destroyed the constitution in the philidelphia convention! Like most liberals you slander the founding fathers in order to advocate for sweeping seizures of individual liberty.

Wait a minute. Pointing out that the founders OWNED SLAVES is slander, for the purpose of taking away individual liberties?

Do you write for the Onion?

Conservative argument: Knowing the foundations of individual liberty and the best way to protect freedom the founders implemented (insert policy here)

Liberal arguement: SSSSSSSSSSSLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY. We should dismiss the selfish principles of individual liberty because it hurts the needs of the collective. After all. The founders were just a bunch of racist and sexist bigots who beleived freedom was only for the white man.

No, the founders believed the document they would create needed a mechanism for amendment

so the Nation would not get stuck living in the 18th century ad infinitum.

It's only rightwing nuts who want to go back to the 18th century.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Most of us know that the U.S. Senate used to be elected by the state legeslatures. The founding fathers did this on purpose so that the states would have a say in government. Of course, this was done away with via the 17th amendment despite the fact that the U.S. House of Represenatives was allready the peoples house which was popularly elected. To date, all congressmen are elected via popular vote and we now have a federal government that caters to popularism at the expense of the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Today the federal government raises taxes on the states and forces the states to pass laws that the federal government cannot constitutionaly make them do in order to get their money back, an extortion that no doubt our founders wanted to prevent. Moreover, the Supreme Court Justices, Treaty's, and other nominations and Senate duty's are carried out by a popularly elected body opposite the wishes of the founding fathers. Furthermore, in light of the current health care law (Obamacare) being contested by 25, if not currently more, states, would this have been prevented if the states had a say in the federal government as they used to? For those who wonder what happened to the 10th amendment, look no further than the 17th. Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?


Article 1 Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof

The 17th Amendment: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof

The 10th Amendment: 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.
YouTube - ‪Thomas DiLorenzo - The 17th Amendment‬‏

So which states would currently have a different Senate delegation (by party) had the legislatures elected the Senators, and assuming they generally voted along party lines?

scott brown wouldn't have gotten into the senate except on a tour

Good point.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It says that voting cannot be denied ON ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that the states can deny voting privilages but not for that purpose. Are you really this stupid?

once again, this reading thing will work much better if you just stick to the words that actually appear on the page.

do you have an oil painting of the constitution which refers to voting as a privilege?

Repeat

It says that voting cannot be denied ON ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that the states can deny voting privilages but not for that purpose. Are you really this stupid?

That in no way makes the case that voting is not a right. There are no unlimited rights. That doesn't preclude rights from existing.

 

[Toro]

...the idea that property owners are somehow more noble and won't screw everyone else through the political arena for their own personal gain is completely obliterated by the farm lobby, which continuously votes itself wealth transfers through subsidies and tariffs at the expense of society at large. Maybe the founding fathers didn't have to worry about things like ethanol mandates but property owners are just as venal at ripping off society as anyone else.

There is nothing new under the sun. In the Founding Era, as in ours, various factions of the electorate voted their own interests. That is an unavoidable aspect of human nature which the Founders recognized. The Founders hoped that might be off-set to the degree possible by tying self-interest to the national interest. The surest way to do that is to ensure that voters have vested interest in the country (i.e. property). People who own property (which can be defined as more than just "land") are impacted to a greater extent than non-propertied people by the policies of the federal government. This isn't because propertied people can vote themselves the Treasury, but precisely because the Treasury is disproportionately derived from taxing these people. The rich pay a heavily disproportionate share of taxes. Such persons naturally take a keener interest in the goings-on of Congress (hence the lobbyists). The other side of the same coin is that people who are not paying taxes are able to vote themselves goodies from the treasury which Thomas Jefferson famously warned against. The problem is the increasingly large number of voters in this country who are disconnected from the responsibilities of citizenship but still have an equal voice at the ballot box. That is democracy and it's precisely what the Founders rightly feared our constitutional Republic might descend into thanks to the demogoguery of men of lesser character leading the masses of ill-informed mobs armed with their votes. Jackson was the first great example of this. The Progressive movement is the most lasting. LBJ's War on Poverty and the permanent welfare society and culture of entitlement it fostered is the latest incarnation. The only way to reversal the descent into the abys is to disenfranchise those who can abuse the system. If not limiting the franchise to property owners, at least limit it to tax payers with citizenship.

Thanks for the post.


Everyone is a taxpayer.

Noncitizens should not be allowed to vote.


Here is a simple problem with the land owning thing.

First guy, dropped out of high school, lives in a trailer park, works periodically, has no savings. He owns the trailer.

Second guy, very educated, corporate executive, works very hard, has $5 million in the bank. He rents.

Who has more invested in the system, the first or second guy?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

 

[Liability]

Yes.

Absolutely.

 

[Publius1787]

Says nothing about privledge

It says that voting cannot be denied ON ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that the states can deny voting privilages but not for that purpose. Are you really this stupid?

So by your logic there's no such thing as the right to bear arms, since that right can be restricted or limited.

jeezus.

The right to bear arms is a recognised fundamental unaleinable right. Voting is not. The constitution does not say that the right to bear arms cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). It does however, say that voting cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). BIG DIFFERENCE. The right to protect yourself is a fundamental right. Voting is a privilage. It has always been this way in america and the supreme court supports this position.

 

[Publius1787]

once again, this reading thing will work much better if you just stick to the words that actually appear on the page.

do you have an oil painting of the constitution which refers to voting as a privilege?

Repeat

It says that voting cannot be denied ON ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that the states can deny voting privilages but not for that purpose. Are you really this stupid?

That in no way makes the case that voting is not a right. There are no unlimited rights. That doesn't preclude rights from existing.

Voting is a privilage. The supreme court holds this stance, the constitution holds this stance, and never in the history of America has voting been considered a right. Moving to your point on "no such thing as unlimited rights", if you exersize your rights to yell fire in a crowded theator you have comitted a crime. If you exersize your rights in such a manner that liberty is directly taken away from another you have commited a crime. So what happenes when people vote rights that are unaleinable away from others? Well, if those rights are unaleinable then they cant be voted away. This is what James Madison was talking about at the constitutinal convention as noted in his "notes on the philidelphia convention". That if you allowed the people who dont pay taxes to vote for services that are funded by those who do, then you are taking the property away from some to benefit the wants of another. Its easy to say "tax the righ more for the services that I want you to implement to benefit me" when you arent paying for them. Thats why they viwed voting as a privilage or to the states descression. So that people could not vote property away from others. And voting property away from others is voting a fundamental right away from one group of citizens to give an arbitrairy and artificial extra right or privilage to others.

 

[bripat9643]

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

We have enough back room dealing thank-you

The 17th Amendment increased the backroom dealing.

 

[bripat9643]

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

That's the leftwing propaganda on the subject. Like all leftwing propaganda, it's pure horseshit. It was passed to emasculate the independence of the states.

OMaybe 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.

When did this country ever have a king?

The revolution was fought by independent states, not by groveling subdivisions of a national government. If you want a government that upholds the ideals of the revolution, then you would support repeal of the 17th Amendment which goes against everything the Founding Fathers believed.

 

[bripat9643]

I certainly think so. We eliminated the States check on the Federal Government. It's not a coincidence that when that occured, the budget exploded and unfunded mandates started getting pushed on the states.

It's time we restore our government.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

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

So you would just scrap the entire Constitution since those racist bigots created it? Is that really what you want to say?

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.

Freedom is not synonymous with democracy. That's leftwing propaganda. The Founding Fathers were horrified by the thought of unlimited democracy, as anyone with a brain should be.

There is no freedom greater than choosing those who rule over you.

Horseshit. Choosing a new set of overseers every two years is not freedom.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

It's no more hilarious than the proposition that current Senators and Congressman aren't beholden to special interests. States can easily pass laws making it illegal for any politician to donate money to get himself appointed as a Senator. That's far easier to control than campaign donations.

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.

Ambassadors are selected by the President, who is elected by popular vote. You obviously have a problem with the popular vote.

 

[Publius1787]

If a right is inalienable, it can't be taken away.

Speaking of due process, inalienable rights do not apply to everyone, as you imply above regarding voting. That's how we are able to keep people at Gitmo for years.

If you take away the rights of others then you are punished by having rights taken from you in a court of law. The founders knew this when it came to voting. Thats why they did not want people with no property voting to take property away from those who do have property. Which is todays democrat party platform. To redistribute property through popularism so that the have nots can benefit from plundering the haves to ensure more political power. Whenever force is involved a crime is being commited. Thats why the founders wanted taxation to only pay for those services that benefit the general (not the specific) welfare and for this to honestly play out that those who dont pay for it dont vote for it. Unaleinable means that no one has the right to vote away the liberty of another. Voting is not a right its a privilage AND I CHALLENGE TO FIND IN THE CONSTITUTION WHERE IT SAYS OTHERWISE. I can point to plenty of examples that it says, AND THE SUPREME COURT SUPPORTS THIS DESCISION, that voting privilages are descided by the states. Oh, and rights are refered to in our founding documents as unaleinable not inaleinable. Though both meant practicaly the same thing.

If the right to vote is unaleinable then why does the constitution say on a number of occasions that, Voting cannot be denied ON THE ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank) . Because voting is and has always been a privilage.

Yeah I know. I get this. I understand the libertarian argument. I am not arguing the efficacy of the Democrat platform. 1) What I am arguing is that even though these ideas of democracy were very progressive in the 1780s, societies evolve, and what seemed revolutionary 230 years ago is beyond antiquated today. That document was written for an agrarian nation, where land conveyed wealth. What is property today? In a post-industrial society, equating land ownership with the franchise does not reflect the productive capacity nor the wealth of this nation. 2) Is property intellectual property? Is it ownership of a car? Or the clothes on your back? Why should a farmer - you know, a landholder who receives billions of dollars from American taxpayers, including from those who own no land - should have a vote whereas the young entrepreneur creating The Next Big thing living in a rental unit in Manhattan or Silicon Valley should not? The fact that the founders did not have the foresight to see that the wealth drivers of this nation would be those manipulating 1s and 0s is no slight on them. How would they know? 3) But they created a document which was designed for another time. That does not mean that the universal truths from then do not apply now, but what it means is that applying an 18th century mindset to a modern society often fails. That's why the discussion of slavery is important in context. If your argument is "What did the founding fathers intend?" back then when interpreting legal questions today, you just can't brush off the fact that many of them owned slaves. Owning slaves doesn't make them bad people. You can only judge them based on the moral code of the day. 4) But what it means is applying a strict literal interpretation of a document written with the mindset of 230 years ago creates all sorts of problems in a modern society because you can't selectively apply the standards of 230 years ago when you are a strict literalist.

5. Which reminds me - the idea that property owners are somehow more noble and won't screw everyone else through the political arena for their own personal gain is completely obliterated by the farm lobby, which continuously votes itself wealth transfers through subsidies and tariffs at the expense of society at large. Maybe the founding fathers didn't have to worry about things like ethanol mandates but property owners are just as venal at ripping off society as anyone else.

I hope you dont mind because I changed your quote to include numbers to make it easy to follow. If there is something that you do not beleived to be addressed please point it out.

1. The principles of liberty never evolve. They are a constsnt principle. I have the right to do whatever I want unless I directly take the liberties of others in the process.

2. Property is liberty. I have the right to think dont I? No one cant take that away without violating my liberties. I have the right to act on my thoughts so as long as my actions do no harm to others dont I? No one has the right to take that away from me. I have the right to, pursue association, associate, or not associate with whoever I want to unless I take away the liberties of others in the process dont I? No one has the right to take that away from me. What all this means is that I have the right to associate with and negotiate with an employer for mutual benefit. He hires my because of my ability to proform actions derived form thought. In this process He takes my labor which only he values and payes me with money which all value. That money is my property just as much as my thoughts, my actions, my right to associate with others, etc etc. If I chut down a tree in my own land and build a chair, it is my property. If I sale the chair, the money I get is my property. When I transform my thoughts, my actions, and my labor in to property that few recognise I get paid in property that all recognise. THE ONLY REASON FOR MY PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN AWAY IN THE FORM OF TAXATION IS FOR THE GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES THAT PROTECT MINE AND EVERYONES RIGHT TO THEIR LIBERTIES SO THAT WE ALL CAN ENJOY LIFE AND PURSUE HAPPINESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ABILITES TO EXERSIZE OUR LIBERTIES WITHOUT HARMING OTHERS.

3. Whats nice about the constitution is that it is amendable. HOWEVER YOU DO NOT CHANGE THE LAW UNLESS IT IS PROPERLY AMENDED! If you think the constitution is outdated THEN YOU DO NOT CHANGE THE RULES WITHOUT SO MUCH AS AN AMENDMENT! Thats how we got the progressive era. It was a time where the constitution was viewed as outdated but was so hard to amend that they just made shit up as they went along and pretended that the constitution sanctioned such authority.

4. A law that can mean anything means nothing. The law does not evolve with respect to liberty. Nobody has the authority to enact laws that take away UNALEINABLE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES thats why we have a bill of rights. The constituion does not magically mean something else today than what it did yersterday. If it is outdated then amend it. But dont attempt to chip away at it because if you do so, even alittle, then there is nothing stopping us from trashing the whole thing. The amendment process is there for a reason.

5. The founders did not approve of redistribution of property whether it be specific individual welfare or specific corperate welfare. In fact, the south during the civil war, when they seceded from the union and wrote their own constitution, they wanted to make sure that the intent of the founders was never violated again. So the specifically outlawed corperate and individual welfare, and money spent on one state at the expense of another. You cannot find a declaration of secession where they do not mention the act of corperate/state welfare as a violation of the constitution.

Finally, if you allow those who pay no taxes to be the defenders of liberty, which is the purpose of government as specefied in the Declaration of Independence, you are giving them to power to direct where the property of thers goes and who it benefits. Keeping in mind that the founders beleived that all federal laws should benefit all the country equally (General Welfare), this could not happen if those who paid no taxes and owned no property voted on services that they were not paying for. What right do you have to choose where someone elses property goes?

 

[Toro]

So you would just scrap the entire Constitution since those racist bigots created it? Is that really what you want to say?

No. Pay attention.

Freedom is not synonymous with democracy. That's leftwing propaganda. The Founding Fathers were horrified by the thought of unlimited democracy, as anyone with a brain should be.

Communists, fascists, dictators, Islamacists and other tyrants agree with you.

Horseshit. Choosing a new set of overseers every two years is not freedom.

I didn't realize that the American extreme right-wing hated democracy so much.

 

[Toro]

1. The principles of liberty never evolve. They are a constsnt principle. I have the right to do whatever I want unless I directly take the liberties of others in the process.

Actually, though I admire your idealism, the principles of liberty have evolved. The principles of liberty as you define them may never change, but they didn't exist in the 15th century. Concepts of liberty as you define them are more a construct of the Enlightenment and notions of The Rights of Man, which BTW philosophers and legal scholars do not necessarily agree. I may agree with you what constitutes liberty, but it is as you define the concept. Others disagree.

2. Property is liberty. I have the right to think dont I? No one cant take that away without violating my liberties. I have the right to act on my thoughts so as long as my actions do no harm to others dont I? No one has the right to take that away from me. I have the right to, pursue association, associate, or not associate with whoever I want to unless I take away the liberties of others in the process dont I? No one has the right to take that away from me. What all this means is that I have the right to associate with and negotiate with an employer for mutual benefit. He hires my because of my ability to proform actions derived form thought. In this process He takes my labor which only he values and payes me with money which all value. That money is my property just as much as my thoughts, my actions, my right to associate with others, etc etc. If I chut down a tree in my own land and build a chair, it is my property. If I sale the chair, the money I get is my property. When I transform my thoughts, my actions, and my labor in to property that few recognise I get paid in property that all recognise. THE ONLY REASON FOR MY PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN AWAY IN THE FORM OF TAXATION IS FOR THE GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES THAT PROTECT MINE AND EVERYONES RIGHT TO THEIR LIBERTIES SO THAT WE ALL CAN ENJOY LIFE AND PURSUE HAPPINESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR ABILITES TO EXERSIZE OUR LIBERTIES WITHOUT HARMING OTHERS.

Two questions, and these are theoretical

1. Where does it say property is liberty?
2. If property is liberty, and the principles of liberty never evolve, what if property is taken in wars of expansion? If an invading army takes property from innocent civilians and deeds the land to the victorious settlers, haven't you violated your own principles? I am not making a moral judgment, but your concepts seem fungible, given that this land was occupied by others 600 years ago, and conquered peoples were driven off their land to make way for new settlers. Again, this isn't a guilt thing but it seems a contradiction to your principles that property is an inalienable right to liberty when that right was violated by taking land from others in the European colonization of this continent.

 

[bripat9643]

So you would just scrap the entire Constitution since those racist bigots created it? Is that really what you want to say?

No. Pay attention.

I am paying attention. You objected to a clause in the original constitution because the Founding Fathers were racists who didn't allow blacks or women to vote. If that provision is suspect, then why aren't all the other provisions suspect?

Freedom is not synonymous with democracy. That's leftwing propaganda. The Founding Fathers were horrified by the thought of unlimited democracy, as anyone with a brain should be.

Communists, fascists, dictators, Islamacists and other tyrants agree with you.

So you get your definition of freedom from Communists, fascists, dictators, Islamacists and other tyrants?

Horseshit. Choosing a new set of overseers every two years is not freedom.

I didn't realize that the American extreme right-wing hated democracy so much.

You just admitted that democracy is exactly the same as choosing your overseers. You object only because I put in plain terms.