Utah looking to repeal 17th amendment

[OKTexas]

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

Yep, just like regressive gains, it's called politics, you're the hypocrite here.

 

[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

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

I agree, we need to do anything possible to avoid career politicians in power, and throw activist judges out as well on both sides of the aisle. This Republican congress however has been too sheepish in standing up to Obama. It has been torture to watch.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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

Very true, and it is adeptly done by both parties. It usually occurs every decade along with the national census, and the party in power is the one who draws the districts.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I agree, we need to do anything possible to avoid career politicians in power, and throw activist judges out as well on both sides of the aisle. This Republican congress however has been too sheepish in standing up to Obama. It has been torture to watch.

Like I said all they can do is chip around the edges short of just shutting things down, they did a lot in the omnibus bill to defund portions of maobamacare and a few other things, but you're right, it's small potatoes compared to the big picture.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.

how do you figure?

seems to me it would add another, bribe-able, middleman.

If a senator isn't attending to the State interests the legislature can replace him at the end of his term, there's no reason to have a reelection war chest, just doing a good job for the State would determine if they are returned to DC. And when it comes to bribes, 60 senators would be much easier to bribe than the majority of 50 State legislatures.

Wal-mart, Verizon, Sony, AT&T are multi billion dollar companies.

how much harder do you think it would be to bribe 50 locals that make less than the 60 senators?

keep in mind how easily people fall for the spin

That would be 50 locals in 60 states, which for the mathematically challenged is 3000 legislators.