Utah looking to repeal 17th amendment

[Two Thumbs]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

More bad faith partisanism from the right, and republicans once again placing party before country.

So you have no intellectual thoughts to add, just assumptions.

thanks, your response was more than predictable.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Maybe Utah should send Alvin Jackson to a remedial Constitution 101 class. Congress can't repeal a Constitutional Amendment.

we can clearly pass laws that infringe upon it.

Nonsense.

Acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)).

Consequently, laws currently in place having been determined by the Court to be Constitutional, or having never been subject to judicial review, are in no way ‘infringing’ on the Constitution.

we have laws that infringe on the First and Second so clearly it's not non-sense.

what's non-sense is the idiotic idea that the Scotus won't do as their party tells them.


but understand, your statement here means you think corporations are people b/c the scotus said so

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

The reason, in my opinion, has nothing to do with corruption. The reason is to give power back to the states by allowing them representation in the congress. Corruption was one of the arguments made to pass this horrible amendment in the first place.

How will it return power or do anything about corruption?

 

[Two Thumbs]

the 17th Amendment is an amendment and not a law.

there must have been a good reason to go that far and does that reason exist today.

Progressivism was the reason, and yes, it still exists. Progresives defend the amendment.

Shifting the power to select senators from the state legislatures to the people was one of the most significant progressive measures to expand democracy in the political system. The Senate was once shaped more by national interests than by concerns more parochial, but what the states got with the Seventeenth Amendment was not the “appointment of senators, . . . vastly the advantage of elections by the people in their collective capacity,” but rather a Senate governed by "the activity of party zeal, taking advantage of the supineness, the ignorance, the hopes, and the fears of the unwary and interested." *



* John Jay to the People of the State of New York, 5 March, 1788, Independent Journal, The Powers of the Senate (Federalist 64).

so you think party partisanship would die off a bit and politicians will pick politicians that care more about the country than their party?

 

[OKTexas]

Can we just stop the charade about repealing the 17th amendment because of States rights or the wishes of the founding fathers?

Republicans control the majority of the State Legislatures. Repealing the 17th would ensure they have a majority of the Senate regardless of the will of the people in that state

Just another ploy for Republicans to rule from a minority

If they control most of the SL then they are not the minority.

And I guess he thinks the State legislatures were elected against the will of the people. Regressive sodomite enablers just don't seem to think things through before they stick their foot in the mouth. And they keep harping that republicans lack critical thinking skills. LMAO

 

[rightwinger]

Can we just stop the charade about repealing the 17th amendment because of States rights or the wishes of the founding fathers?

Republicans control the majority of the State Legislatures. Repealing the 17th would ensure they have a majority of the Senate regardless of the will of the people in that state

Just another ploy for Republicans to rule from a minority

If they control most of the SL then they are not the minority.

That is where gerrymandering comes in. They use re districting to dilute the number of seats Democrats can win....just like in the House

 

[rightwinger]

Can we just stop the charade about repealing the 17th amendment because of States rights or the wishes of the founding fathers?

Republicans control the majority of the State Legislatures. Repealing the 17th would ensure they have a majority of the Senate regardless of the will of the people in that state

Just another ploy for Republicans to rule from a minority

If they control most of the SL then they are not the minority.

And I guess he thinks the State legislatures were elected against the will of the people. Regressive sodomite enablers just don't seem to think things through before they stick their foot in the mouth. And they keep harping that republicans lack critical thinking skills. LMAO

Another righty ignorant of the practices of his own party

 

[JakeStarkey]

And We the People, basically said, that the Founders got this portion of it wrong.

You and Two Thumbs are peas in a pod, one on the left and one on the right.

You only hear what you want to hear.

Such as Utah is the most corrupt state in the union. As I recall was your opening diatribe on this thread.
If Utah is so horrible, so dishonest, so lacking in decorum, why do you do so much of your business there? Why did you do to school there?
Why don't you tell us your real name so I can alert my fellow Utahns how you feel about our great state

His real name is Vladimir Lenin, jr,, aka, Comrade Starkiev. Type slowly , he still learning how to speak English..

I love Utah and its people, and I detest the GOP-hold on the legislature, particularly the caucus system. How nice that 78% of Utahns, just like me, approve of the newly enacted primary system. Remember how our party leaders tried to break their word after they said they would abide by the new law, and the judge told them that in no uncertain terms if they did not follow it, there would be no GOP candidates in 2016 on the state ballots? Utah is not perfect only because of our corrupt legislature.

You are not from Utah, you are from the People's Republic of Taxachussets.

But if you are from Utah then we may bump to each other because we frequent Bear Lake State Park.

My SIL got us into one of those huge homes on the east shore down toward the Northend for a weekend get together last winter.
I think the home was owned by some doctor out of Twin Falls.

Have family members who own a house on the lake just past Garden City. Love the area.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Can we just stop the charade about repealing the 17th amendment because of States rights or the wishes of the founding fathers?

Republicans control the majority of the State Legislatures. Repealing the 17th would ensure they have a majority of the Senate regardless of the will of the people in that state

Just another ploy for Republicans to rule from a minority

If they control most of the SL then they are not the minority.

The metro area of SL votes generally Dem. Jim Dabakis and Jackie Biskupski are always elected from there. She became Mayor this last time around, beating Becker.

The great Mormon strongholds are Cache, Box Elder, and Davis counties north of SLC, much of the valley outside of SLC, and Utah County south.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

So what would happen if Republican state legislatures were allowed to select Senators instead of voters?

Hmm,,,let me see

You wouldnt have things like the Department of Education, Obamacare, countless other federal agencies, or the Federal government telling to North Carolina to make their bathrooms open to whichever sex or no money for you. .It would Slow down run away federal expansion.

 

[rightwinger]

So what would happen if Republican state legislatures were allowed to select Senators instead of voters?

Hmm,,,let me see

You wouldnt have things like the Department of Education, Obamacare, countless other federal agencies, or the Federal government telling to North Carolina to make their bathrooms open to whichever sex or no money for you. .It would Slow down run away federal expansion.

Conservatives sure do obsess over where transsexuals pee

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Maybe Utah should send Alvin Jackson to a remedial Constitution 101 class. Congress can't repeal a Constitutional Amendment.

we can clearly pass laws that infringe upon it.

Nonsense.

Acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)).

Consequently, laws currently in place having been determined by the Court to be Constitutional, or having never been subject to judicial review, are in no way ‘infringing’ on the Constitution.

What about presidents the blatantly violate existing law?

What about a congress that doesn't have the balls to stand up to that president

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

The reason, in my opinion, has nothing to do with corruption. The reason is to give power back to the states by allowing them representation in the congress. Corruption was one of the arguments made to pass this horrible amendment in the first place.

How will it return power or do anything about corruption?

When senators were selected by the states, they acted, voted on Behalf of the states, politicians pander to the people who elect them. So when the states lost their representatives in the senate, the senate essentially became just like House of Reps.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

"Utah looking to repeal 17th amendment"

Again, such proposals from the right are made in bad faith.

This is not an effort by conservatives to return the Senate to the Framers’ ‘original intent’; rather, it’s a partisan power play by the right.

Conservatives ‘reason’ that with senators appointed again to the Senate by the states – where a majority of states are controlled by republicans – the Senate would continuously be controlled by republicans.

So this ‘proposal’ has nothing whatsoever to do with ‘protecting’ the people against their rulers, it has to do with partisan politics, and republicans advancing their wrongheaded agenda hostile to the people and their protected liberties.

Fortunately, and needless to say, this will never come to pass.

You may be right but it is the only argument that can be used to persuade politicians to do anything now days. I'm cool with it.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

The reason, in my opinion, has nothing to do with corruption. The reason is to give power back to the states by allowing them representation in the congress. Corruption was one of the arguments made to pass this horrible amendment in the first place.

How will it return power or do anything about corruption?

When senators were selected by the states, they acted, voted on Behalf of the states, politicians pander to the people who elect them. So when the states lost their representatives in the senate, the senate essentially became just like House of Reps.

Another point is that when the senate was controlled by the state governments it was another check since it was power butting up against power. How far were the states going to let the federal government control their territory? I doubt they would let them do very much at all within their own states since they wanted to be king of their own hills. I hate to point out how politicians really think inside but it is the truth. Once they get into office they act like any other dictator.

 

[OKTexas]

Can we just stop the charade about repealing the 17th amendment because of States rights or the wishes of the founding fathers?

Republicans control the majority of the State Legislatures. Repealing the 17th would ensure they have a majority of the Senate regardless of the will of the people in that state

Just another ploy for Republicans to rule from a minority

If they control most of the SL then they are not the minority.

And I guess he thinks the State legislatures were elected against the will of the people. Regressive sodomite enablers just don't seem to think things through before they stick their foot in the mouth. And they keep harping that republicans lack critical thinking skills. LMAO

Another righty ignorant of the practices of his own party

Is that really all you got. Can't tell me how State legislatures are elected against the will of the people as you claim? Come on regressive tell us exactly how State legislature don't represent the will of the people? Better yet why don't you just admit that you lied and you regressives only represent a majority is a few States.

 

[rightwinger]

Can we just stop the charade about repealing the 17th amendment because of States rights or the wishes of the founding fathers?

Republicans control the majority of the State Legislatures. Repealing the 17th would ensure they have a majority of the Senate regardless of the will of the people in that state

Just another ploy for Republicans to rule from a minority

If they control most of the SL then they are not the minority.

And I guess he thinks the State legislatures were elected against the will of the people. Regressive sodomite enablers just don't seem to think things through before they stick their foot in the mouth. And they keep harping that republicans lack critical thinking skills. LMAO

Another righty ignorant of the practices of his own party

Is that really all you got. Can't tell me how State legislatures are elected against the will of the people as you claim? Come on regressive tell us exactly how State legislature don't represent the will of the people? Better yet why don't you just admit that you lied and you regressives only represent a majority is a few States.

The will of the people can be bent through efficient gerrymandering of election districts. Majority rules, but you can rig that majority by carefully crafting district boundaries

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe Utah should send Alvin Jackson to a remedial Constitution 101 class. Congress can't repeal a Constitutional Amendment.

we can clearly pass laws that infringe upon it.

Nonsense.

Acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (US v. Morrison (2000)).

Consequently, laws currently in place having been determined by the Court to be Constitutional, or having never been subject to judicial review, are in no way ‘infringing’ on the Constitution.

What about presidents the blatantly violate existing law?

What about a congress that doesn't have the balls to stand up to that president

The fix, don't reelect incumbents. But in fairness, without a veto proof majority all they can do is chip around the edges.

 

[OKTexas]

Can we just stop the charade about repealing the 17th amendment because of States rights or the wishes of the founding fathers?

Republicans control the majority of the State Legislatures. Repealing the 17th would ensure they have a majority of the Senate regardless of the will of the people in that state

Just another ploy for Republicans to rule from a minority

If they control most of the SL then they are not the minority.

And I guess he thinks the State legislatures were elected against the will of the people. Regressive sodomite enablers just don't seem to think things through before they stick their foot in the mouth. And they keep harping that republicans lack critical thinking skills. LMAO

Another righty ignorant of the practices of his own party

Is that really all you got. Can't tell me how State legislatures are elected against the will of the people as you claim? Come on regressive tell us exactly how State legislature don't represent the will of the people? Better yet why don't you just admit that you lied and you regressives only represent a majority is a few States.

The will of the people can be bent through efficient gerrymandering of election districts. Majority rules, but you can rig that majority by carefully crafting district boundaries

Of course the regressive controlled States would never ever consider using such tactics, RIGHT? LMFAO

 

[rightwinger]

If they control most of the SL then they are not the minority.

And I guess he thinks the State legislatures were elected against the will of the people. Regressive sodomite enablers just don't seem to think things through before they stick their foot in the mouth. And they keep harping that republicans lack critical thinking skills. LMAO

Another righty ignorant of the practices of his own party

Is that really all you got. Can't tell me how State legislatures are elected against the will of the people as you claim? Come on regressive tell us exactly how State legislature don't represent the will of the people? Better yet why don't you just admit that you lied and you regressives only represent a majority is a few States.

The will of the people can be bent through efficient gerrymandering of election districts. Majority rules, but you can rig that majority by carefully crafting district boundaries

Of course the regressive controlled States would never ever consider using such tactics, RIGHT? LMFAO

Glad to see you admit Republican gains are primarily through gerrymandering