Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Letting legislators pick Senators would mean fewer voters need to be bribed or otherwise coerced into voting a certain way.
It would also encourage gerrymandering of in-state voting districts.
Wrong, assholeLetting legislators pick Senators would mean fewer voters need to be bribed or otherwise coerced into voting a certain way.
It would also encourage gerrymandering of in-state voting districts.
It wasn't the Legislators that did the pick for the Senate. It was the Governor.
I am not against such an idea as long as we also roll back the House to it's part time unpaid status. And apply term limits to all.
You said the senate was created to represent the will of the states,Obviously wrong.The president was created to represent the will of the states.
The president was chosen by the same people.
That only further shows that the will of the states was to supreme in matters that did not cross our borders.
How are states rights weakened by allowing the residents of a state to directly elect their Senators?
If you are asking this sincerely, you don't understand the premise of the constitution.
Quite simply put, the federal government is a limited government (in scope). The senate was put in place to ensure the house (the body elected by the people) didn't usurp power which they have been doing since 1913. Additionally, the senate would only put justices on the SCOTUS who had a strong respect for the soveriegn power of states in the matters that the constitution said belonged to them (that pesky 10th amendment).
It wouldn't require fewer bribes because they'd still be trying to bribe the whole country, just for different elections. And we already have gerrymandering of federal voting districts and state voting districts so what's the difference?Letting legislators pick Senators would mean fewer voters need to be bribed or otherwise coerced into voting a certain way.
It would also encourage gerrymandering of in-state voting districts.
If it wasn't true, then you wouldn't be arguing against repealing the 17th Amendment. We all know that.You said the senate was created to represent the will of the states,Obviously wrong.The president was created to represent the will of the states.
The president was chosen by the same people.
That only further shows that the will of the states was to supreme in matters that did not cross our borders.
How are states rights weakened by allowing the residents of a state to directly elect their Senators?
You said the senate was created to represent the will of the states,Obviously wrong.The president was created to represent the will of the states.
The president was chosen by the same people.
That only further shows that the will of the states was to supreme in matters that did not cross our borders.
How are states rights weakened by allowing the residents of a state to directly elect their Senators?
If you are asking this sincerely, you don't understand the premise of the constitution.
Quite simply put, the federal government is a limited government (in scope). The senate was put in place to ensure the house (the body elected by the people) didn't usurp power which they have been doing since 1913. Additionally, the senate would only put justices on the SCOTUS who had a strong respect for the soveriegn power of states in the matters that the constitution said belonged to them (that pesky 10th amendment).
I certainly do have a clue. You've already been given several reasons. I just have no further interest in trying to educate someone who is determined to remain ignorant.If it wasn't true, then you wouldn't be arguing against repealing the 17th Amendment. We all know that.You said the senate was created to represent the will of the states,Obviously wrong.
The president was chosen by the same people.
That only further shows that the will of the states was to supreme in matters that did not cross our borders.
How are states rights weakened by allowing the residents of a state to directly elect their Senators?
lol, so your answer is you have no clue how.
By "conservatives" you mean people who believe in freedom. If you think it gives an advantage to them, then you must believe it limits the power of the federal government.You said the senate was created to represent the will of the states,Obviously wrong.
The president was chosen by the same people.
That only further shows that the will of the states was to supreme in matters that did not cross our borders.
How are states rights weakened by allowing the residents of a state to directly elect their Senators?
If you are asking this sincerely, you don't understand the premise of the constitution.
Quite simply put, the federal government is a limited government (in scope). The senate was put in place to ensure the house (the body elected by the people) didn't usurp power which they have been doing since 1913. Additionally, the senate would only put justices on the SCOTUS who had a strong respect for the soveriegn power of states in the matters that the constitution said belonged to them (that pesky 10th amendment).
Like I said, the only reason conservatives want this is that they think it gives political advantage to conservatives.
I certainly do have a clue.
...
He's more credible than McCain.I certainly do have a clue.
...
This ^ from a guy who takes a Pizzagate truther and Infowars CT warrior on steroids at his word and finds him to be a credible source.
Reading comprehension is hard.It wouldn't require fewer bribes because they'd still be trying to bribe the whole country, just for different elections. And we already have gerrymandering of federal voting districts and state voting districts so what's the difference?Letting legislators pick Senators would mean fewer voters need to be bribed or otherwise coerced into voting a certain way.
It would also encourage gerrymandering of in-state voting districts.
A 2 vote advantage in a state legislature for one party would require how many well placed bribes to shift the balance of power?
And your endorsement of gerrymandering is fascinating.
term limits is the only way. Limit Senators to one term and House members to 3 terms.Something must be done to end the corruption and rigging of elections that enable Senators to rig/bribe/corrupt their way into serving 40 years in the senate.
“Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on Friday called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment and the return to senators selected by state legislatures after the Senate GOP's effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare died in a late-night vote.”
Huckabee calls for repeal of 17th Amendment after healthcare failure
Such advocacy of ‘repeal’ is made in bad faith, of course – motivated by rightist partisanism given the majority of the states are controlled by Republicans.
Needless to say, if a majority of the states were controlled by Democrats, we wouldn’t hear anything from the reprehensible right about ‘repealing’ the 17th Amendment.
Why would you have a problem with term limits for Senators?
Would you go to a surgeon with little experience, or choose one with lots of experience? Would you to a fertilizer salesman, or an attorney for legal advice?
Wrong, assholeLetting legislators pick Senators would mean fewer voters need to be bribed or otherwise coerced into voting a certain way.
It would also encourage gerrymandering of in-state voting districts.
It wasn't the Legislators that did the pick for the Senate. It was the Governor.
I am not against such an idea as long as we also roll back the House to it's part time unpaid status. And apply term limits to all.
Section 3
1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State chosen by the Legislature thereof; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
“Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on Friday called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment and the return to senators selected by state legislatures after the Senate GOP's effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare died in a late-night vote.”
Huckabee calls for repeal of 17th Amendment after healthcare failure
Such advocacy of ‘repeal’ is made in bad faith, of course – motivated by rightist partisanism given the majority of the states are controlled by Republicans.
Needless to say, if a majority of the states were controlled by Democrats, we wouldn’t hear anything from the reprehensible right about ‘repealing’ the 17th Amendment.
Why would you have a problem with term limits for Senators?
Would you go to a surgeon with little experience, or choose one with lots of experience? Would you to a fertilizer salesman, or an attorney for legal advice?
You elected Bammy and he had ZERO experience.
You said the senate was created to represent the will of the states,Obviously wrong.
The president was chosen by the same people.
That only further shows that the will of the states was to supreme in matters that did not cross our borders.
How are states rights weakened by allowing the residents of a state to directly elect their Senators?
If you are asking this sincerely, you don't understand the premise of the constitution.
Quite simply put, the federal government is a limited government (in scope). The senate was put in place to ensure the house (the body elected by the people) didn't usurp power which they have been doing since 1913. Additionally, the senate would only put justices on the SCOTUS who had a strong respect for the soveriegn power of states in the matters that the constitution said belonged to them (that pesky 10th amendment).
Like I said, the only reason conservatives want this is that they think it gives political advantage to conservatives.
“Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on Friday called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment and the return to senators selected by state legislatures after the Senate GOP's effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare died in a late-night vote.”
Huckabee calls for repeal of 17th Amendment after healthcare failure
Such advocacy of ‘repeal’ is made in bad faith, of course – motivated by rightist partisanism given the majority of the states are controlled by Republicans.
Needless to say, if a majority of the states were controlled by Democrats, we wouldn’t hear anything from the reprehensible right about ‘repealing’ the 17th Amendment.
Why would you have a problem with term limits for Senators?
Would you go to a surgeon with little experience, or choose one with lots of experience? Would you to a fertilizer salesman, or an attorney for legal advice?
You elected Bammy and he had ZERO experience.
From what I can see, the only experience it needs to be a Republican Senator is to hate America. With only 3 Exceptions.
You said the senate was created to represent the will of the states,Obviously wrong.
The president was chosen by the same people.
That only further shows that the will of the states was to supreme in matters that did not cross our borders.
How are states rights weakened by allowing the residents of a state to directly elect their Senators?
If you are asking this sincerely, you don't understand the premise of the constitution.
Quite simply put, the federal government is a limited government (in scope). The senate was put in place to ensure the house (the body elected by the people) didn't usurp power which they have been doing since 1913. Additionally, the senate would only put justices on the SCOTUS who had a strong respect for the soveriegn power of states in the matters that the constitution said belonged to them (that pesky 10th amendment).
How does that argue against the people of the state electing their Senators?
Wrong, assholeLetting legislators pick Senators would mean fewer voters need to be bribed or otherwise coerced into voting a certain way.
It would also encourage gerrymandering of in-state voting districts.
It wasn't the Legislators that did the pick for the Senate. It was the Governor.
I am not against such an idea as long as we also roll back the House to it's part time unpaid status. And apply term limits to all.
Section 3
1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State chosen by the Legislature thereof; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
You sure know how to end any meanful discussion with you.
