Get your conservative and liberal ideas approved or shot down here

[TheGreatGatsby]

I was considering accepting this on the basis that states would actually be able to hold their representatives more accountable.....(which it seemingly won't)

Which it would. More closely, the idea is that the senate would counter the house so the house does not run wild with federal ideas.

I just don't see a compelling reason to take the vote away from the individual citizen and hand it to governor or legislature. Also, it'd create a winner takes all political environment. Say a GOP governor is running and he has a slim majority in a Democratic state. It only takes that marginal amount of persons that don't want to lose their Democratic senators to swing it back the other way. And if the situation was reversed you might have to vote for a GOP governor you don't like to keep Republican Senators that you do like. That's just a mess. The 17th amendment is a good amendment.

I think you promoted the repeal of the 17th amendment under the guise of states rights but it truly does nothing to give states back power. Giving a governor power instead of a voter is not giving states power.

 

[Listening]

I was considering accepting this on the basis that states would actually be able to hold their representatives more accountable.....(which it seemingly won't)

Which it would. More closely, the idea is that the senate would counter the house so the house does not run wild with federal ideas.

I just don't see a compelling reason to take the vote away from the individual citizen and hand it to governor or legislature. Also, it'd create a winner takes all political environment. Say a GOP governor is running and he has a slim majority in a Democratic state. It only takes that marginal amount of persons that don't want to lose their Democratic senators to swing it back the other way. And if the situation was reversed you might have to vote for a GOP governor you don't like to keep Republican Senators that you do like. That's just a mess. The 17th amendment is a good amendment.

I think you promoted the repeal of the 17th amendment under the guise of states rights but it truly does nothing to give states back power. Giving a governor power instead of a voter is not giving states power.

If you look at the way the government was set up, the idea was that the individual voter is supposed to have sway over elected officials close to home.

The federal government was not supposed to deal in many of the areas they deal in now. The senate was created to protect the righs of the states so that states could operate independently from each other thus giving the people in the states the opportunity to tailor their situation to what they want regardless of what is going on around them.

The more decisions that are made in the DC are made for all 50 states.

I am afraid I can't see how you don't find value in this.

If people don't like who the govenor appoints, they can go after the govenor.

Blog...well, he came from Illinois. And you know what other crap it has provided.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Which it would. More closely, the idea is that the senate would counter the house so the house does not run wild with federal ideas.

I just don't see a compelling reason to take the vote away from the individual citizen and hand it to governor or legislature. Also, it'd create a winner takes all political environment. Say a GOP governor is running and he has a slim majority in a Democratic state. It only takes that marginal amount of persons that don't want to lose their Democratic senators to swing it back the other way. And if the situation was reversed you might have to vote for a GOP governor you don't like to keep Republican Senators that you do like. That's just a mess. The 17th amendment is a good amendment.

I think you promoted the repeal of the 17th amendment under the guise of states rights but it truly does nothing to give states back power. Giving a governor power instead of a voter is not giving states power.

If you look at the way the government was set up, the idea was that the individual voter is supposed to have sway over elected officials close to home.

The federal government was not supposed to deal in many of the areas they deal in now. The senate was created to protect the righs of the states so that states could operate independently from each other thus giving the people in the states the opportunity to tailor their situation to what they want regardless of what is going on around them.

The more decisions that are made in the DC are made for all 50 states.

I am afraid I can't see how you don't find value in this.

If people don't like who the govenor appoints, they can go after the govenor.

Blog...well, he came from Illinois. And you know what other crap it has provided.

Two Senators for each state was created to protect the power of states. The manner in which they are elected or appointed does not throw off that balance.

And in fact, repealing the 17th amendment takes control away from the individual citizen to choose a Senator that best represents his/her views.

The 17th amendment does nothing to truly take power from states as states do ultimately decide their representatives (just not in your preferred manner).

 

[Listening]

Two Senators for each state was created to protect the power of states. The manner in which they are elected or appointed does not throw off that balance.

And in fact, repealing the 17th amendment takes control away from the individual citizen to choose a Senator that best represents his/her views.

The 17th amendment does nothing to truly take power from states as states do ultimately decide their representatives (just not in your preferred manner).

I am afraid I don't agree with you on your first statement. They are now often called "superrepresentatives". They now campaign on populist views...what people want directly. Not indirectly through their state governments...in effect bypassing the process.

This is why power flows to D.C.

http://www.dogpile.com/search/web?fcoid=417&fcop=topnav&fpid=27&q=Repeal+the+17th+amendment&ql=

The founders created the Senate to be the legislative body that represented the states, while the House of Representatives represented the people. These two bodies were designed to
provide checks and balances between the legislative branch and the executive branch while also providing checks and balances between the federal government and the states.

The same progressive philosophy that prevailed during the Wilson era, that produced the Income Tax Amendment and the Federal Reserve, also produced the 17th Amendment in
1913. This Amendment took from the state legislatures the right to choose their two Senators, and let the people of the state choose their Senators in a state-wide election.

What's wrong with the people choosing their own Senators? For starters, this amendment strips power from the states, which ultimately strengthens the federal government. This Amendment removes an important check and balance between the federal government and the states. This Amendment completely removes the states from participation in the:

1. approval of federal legislation;

2. approval of executive appointments for cabinet positions and federal judges;

3. ratification of international treaties; and

4. judgment in all matters of impeachment.

Moreover, state-wide election of Senators seriously reduces the accountability Senators have to their constituents. Representatives are accountable to the people in their District; Senators have a much larger pool of voters to woo, and can afford to offend far more people than can Representatives. And they do!

Because the 17th Amendment was adopted; the federal government has lost all respect for the wishes of the states. Unfunded mandates would never have occurred had the 17th Amendment never been adopted. It's time to correct this mistake in the same way we corrected the Prohibition Amendment - by repealing it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The founders created the Senate to be the legislative body that represented the states

The 17th amendment did not change that. Only state citizens elect their Senators.

this amendment strips power from the states, which ultimately strengthens the federal government.

You think that taking your individual vote away and giving it to governor or state legislature strengthens state power? I don't. You as a state citizen have full control to elect your representatives. That is all you can ask for.

This Amendment completely removes the states from participation in the:

1. approval of federal legislation;

2. approval of executive appointments for cabinet positions and federal judges;

3. ratification of international treaties; and

4. judgment in all matters of impeachment.

States have the same say they've always had. Before Senators had 6 year appointments. They still do. You really think that a six year Senator will be that beholden to a governor? If he/she is then that just means a governor becomes a puppet master or that Senator is out. I don't want that. The electorate needs to be responsible for holding Senators to account. If they can't do that then that is their own faults. They currently have the ability to hold their politicians accountable (well just as much as if not more than if they were governor appointed anyways).

Because the 17th Amendment was adopted; the federal government has lost all respect for the wishes of the states. Unfunded mandates would never have occurred had the 17th Amendment never been adopted. It's time to correct this mistake in the same way we corrected the Prohibition Amendment - by repealing it.

I live in California. We've basically given Boxer and Feinstein lifetime appointments b/c our electorate is dumbasses. I can relate to your idea of having the governor pick. That part of me wants it. But I'm not going to rig the system based on people's stupidity. I want the right system and the right system will work for good people. When Americans are ready to not be selfish little pricks, then the system will start working for us again.

 

[Listening]

The 17th amendment did not change that. Only state citizens elect their Senators.

Yes it did.

Senators are elected on federal platforms. They have no say in state governemnt so when they make promises they are promises to provide from federal legislation.

Their re-election depends on delivering.

Saying you shut down all kinds of federal legislation isn't a very good re-election platform.

If Senators were doing their job, our federal government would be 1/10th it's current size.

And states would be taking care of a lot more business.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

The 17th amendment did not change that. Only state citizens elect their Senators.

Yes it did.

Senators are elected on federal platforms. They have no say in state governemnt so when they make promises they are promises to provide from federal legislation.

Their re-election depends on delivering.

Saying you shut down all kinds of federal legislation isn't a very good re-election platform.

If Senators were doing their job, our federal government would be 1/10th it's current size.

And states would be taking care of a lot more business.

This is your best argument by far. Perhaps the 17th amendment has shifted state interests to a federal level. If you came with this type of clarity I may have approved it in the first place. I still have reservations, but I'll reverse my decision and approve your proposition.

 

[konradv]

The 17th amendment did not change that. Only state citizens elect their Senators.

Yes it did.

Senators are elected on federal platforms. They have no say in state governemnt so when they make promises they are promises to provide from federal legislation.

Their re-election depends on delivering.

Saying you shut down all kinds of federal legislation isn't a very good re-election platform.

If Senators were doing their job, our federal government would be 1/10th it's current size.

And states would be taking care of a lot more business.

This is your best argument by far. Perhaps the 17th amendment has shifted state interests to a federal level. If you came with this type of clarity I may have approved it in the first place. I still have reservations, but I'll reverse my decision and approve your proposition.

I'm going to have to give youe a BIG FAIL on this one. It's all platitudes with no solutions. Just saying people should be doing their job doesn't DO a thing.

 

[Peach]

Same gender marriage should be legal in all fifty states. Along with all martial benefits derived therefrom.

Proponents of gay marriage claim that it is an inherent Constitutional right. I completely disagree. Such an issue was not even on the Founding Fathers radar. Nor was it on Lincoln's radar when he signed the 14th Amendment.

Did Lincoln address marriage at all in the 14th? I think NOT.

Proponents of traditional marriage are correct when they state that the nuclear family is the fabric of America and it has been for the history of mankind. Heterosexual marriage is an inherent right and an honored institution. And it was never created in an attempt to denigrate any sort of behavior or competing lifestyle. It literally was in effect as the most efficient and natural institution.People that are for gay marriage, conveniently want to ignore that reality.

If gay marriage were reality and govt. gave a heterosexual married couple an advantage that is in society's best interest then govt. would be required to give a homosexual couple the same advantage that may not be in society's best interest.


The same argument was used to prevent interracial marriage.


And we should not pretend that gay marriage is not about government officially sanctioning the morality of the homosexual lifestyle. I do not want the government sanctioning or condemning sexual lifestyles.


EXCEPT heterosexual marriage
And, gay marriage would lead to discrimination suits against individuals that dare to challenge the morality of homosexual behavior.

IF marriage is a RIGHT, therefore same gender marriage must be. It is a privilege actually. NOW, do tell us about the Founders' RADARS...........................

 

[Peach]

Load mote cute little pictures;

I do not want the government sanctioning or condemning sexual lifestyles.

So, an eight year old can have sexual relations with an adult? That may be the adults "lifestyle." *

Proponents of traditional marriage are correct when they state that the nuclear family is the fabric of America and it has been for the history of mankind.

In ALL nations, all societies? INCORRECT. In fact, your arguments all stem from the "theories" behind anti miscegenation laws.



I do not like that invented word, LIFESTYLE.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Libertarianism, as an actual political party, is an exercise in mental masturbation.

We will never return to the Deadwood, and it really didn't work out that well to begin with.


Approve or disapprove?

Bullshit - it worked just fine..

As a libertarian I could give a fuck less if two dudes want to duel..

It's their fucking decision - not yours...

Who the fuck do people think they are telling me what to do??

The only logical society is a libertarian society..

 

[Peach]

Repeal the 17th amendment.

Return the appointement of senators to the states. This would remove them as players in Washington vieing for re-election based on populist issues and would focus them on maintaining states powers.

Of course, some states might not like the idea.

HUH? Maintaining state powers? How would an ELECTED legislature, some of whose members seek federal office "maintain" state powers by choosing Senators? In the past, there were times Senators could not be chosen because of state legislative inaction, and fights. A popularly elected Senator need worry less about the whims of state reps, more about the voters within the state, obviously. State legislatures choosing Senators is cronyism at its worst.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Load mote cute little pictures;

I do not want the government sanctioning or condemning sexual lifestyles.

So, an eight year old can have sexual relations with an adult? That may be the adults "lifestyle." *

Proponents of traditional marriage are correct when they state that the nuclear family is the fabric of America and it has been for the history of mankind.

In ALL nations, all societies? INCORRECT. In fact, your arguments all stem from the "theories" behind anti miscegenation laws.

I do not like that invented word, LIFESTYLE.

* Pedophilia is a crime, not a sexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is not a crime.

* My arguments do not stem from miscegenation (or anti miscegenation). I have to wonder if you even know what the word means since nothing I said relates to that.

 

[Peach]

Load mote cute little pictures;

I do not want the government sanctioning or condemning sexual lifestyles.

So, an eight year old can have sexual relations with an adult? That may be the adults "lifestyle." *

Proponents of traditional marriage are correct when they state that the nuclear family is the fabric of America and it has been for the history of mankind.

In ALL nations, all societies? INCORRECT. In fact, your arguments all stem from the "theories" behind anti miscegenation laws.

I do not like that invented word, LIFESTYLE.

* Pedophilia is a crime, not a sexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is not a crime.

* My arguments do not stem from miscegenation (or anti miscegenation). I have to wonder if you even know what the word means since nothing I said relates to that.

I do, and the same arguments were made about "preserving society", "natural", and "historical family structure". Read up on it.

Throughout the nation’s history, opponents of interracial marriage justified criminal prohibitions against such unions by pointing to the purported detrimental effect of mixed-race birth and parentage, the supposed destruction of society if people marry between the races, and the so-called natural law rationale for keeping the races separate.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Howard_Univ_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

KABOOM! BLAST!

 

[Peach]

One more on same gender marriage & anti miscegenation laws:

http://www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv4/gro...review/documents/documents/ecm_pro_070526.pdf

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Load mote cute little pictures;

I do not want the government sanctioning or condemning sexual lifestyles.

So, an eight year old can have sexual relations with an adult? That may be the adults "lifestyle." *

Proponents of traditional marriage are correct when they state that the nuclear family is the fabric of America and it has been for the history of mankind.

In ALL nations, all societies? INCORRECT. In fact, your arguments all stem from the "theories" behind anti miscegenation laws.

I do not like that invented word, LIFESTYLE.

* Pedophilia is a crime, not a sexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is not a crime.

* My arguments do not stem from miscegenation (or anti miscegenation). I have to wonder if you even know what the word means since nothing I said relates to that.

I do, and the same arguments were made about "preserving society", "natural", and "historical family structure". Read up on it.

Throughout the nation’s history, opponents of interracial marriage justified criminal prohibitions against such unions by pointing to the purported detrimental effect of mixed-race birth and parentage, the supposed destruction of society if people marry between the races, and the so-called natural law rationale for keeping the races separate.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Howard_Univ_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

KABOOM! BLAST!

In many cultures, miscegenation has been a way of life. In many cultures it still is. But that really had nothing to do with my point. It was a stretch for you to assume that it was.

 

[Peach]

* Pedophilia is a crime, not a sexual lifestyle. Homosexuality is not a crime.

* My arguments do not stem from miscegenation (or anti miscegenation). I have to wonder if you even know what the word means since nothing I said relates to that.

I do, and the same arguments were made about "preserving society", "natural", and "historical family structure". Read up on it.

Throughout the nation’s history, opponents of interracial marriage justified criminal prohibitions against such unions by pointing to the purported detrimental effect of mixed-race birth and parentage, the supposed destruction of society if people marry between the races, and the so-called natural law rationale for keeping the races separate.

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/Howard_Univ_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf

KABOOM! BLAST!

In many cultures, miscegenation has been a way of life. In many cultures it still is. But that really had nothing to do with my point. It was a stretch for you to assume that it was.

I was addressing the arguments you made supporting your assertions. They are similar to the arguments made in favor of anti miscegenation laws. SHOT DOWN, decades ago. All depend upon acceptance by the majority of society in question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Same gender marriage should be legal in all fifty states. Along with all martial benefits derived therefrom.

http://www.chronicgames.net/images/games/snes/snes-kablooey-box-front.jpg[/IMG

Proponents of gay marriage claim that it is an inherent Constitutional right. I completely disagree. Such an issue was not even on the Founding Fathers radar. Nor was it on Lincoln's radar when he signed the 14th Amendment.[/quote]

Peach did not make a constitutional argument.

[quote]Proponents of traditional marriage are correct when they state that the nuclear family is the fabric of America and it has been for the history of mankind. Heterosexual marriage is an inherent right and an honored institution. And it was never created in an attempt to denigrate any sort of behavior or competing lifestyle. It literally was in effect as the most efficient and natural institution.People that are for gay marriage, conveniently want to ignore that reality. [/quote]

1. Polygamy has as much of a 'traditional marriage' history as does heterosexual monogamy.

2. Same sex marriage has its own tradition, albeit a lesser one, because of smaller numbers; some native American tribes sanctioned same sex marriage.

3. But most importantly, 'Tradition', in and of itself, is not even a valid substantive argument in defense of anything. Slavery has a long tradition in the history of mankind, as does the subjugation of women, as does child labor. For that matter, constitutional democratic government wasn't even 'traditional' when it was formed here in the 18th century. Would you argue that the founders were 'out of line' for not respecting tradition?

[quote]If gay marriage were reality and govt. gave a heterosexual married couple an advantage that is in society's best interest then govt. would be required to give a homosexual couple the same advantage that may not be in society's best interest.[/quote]

Now what would be some real life examples of that????

[quote]And we should not pretend that gay marriage is not about government officially sanctioning the morality of the homosexual lifestyle. I do not want the government sanctioning or condemning sexual lifestyles. [/quote]

What is immoral about a long term monogamous same sex union?

[quote]And, gay marriage would lead to discrimination suits against individuals that dare to challenge the morality of homosexual behavior.[/quote]

How would that work, in a real life situation?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

She might not have been making a Constitutional argument, but I was (especially since gay marriage advocates do try to go there).

And I don't care if a same sex union is moral or not. But I don't want the government in the business of deciding that it's moral or not or rather needlessly promoting sexuality.

How would people that challenge homosexual behavior be abused? Well right now, teachers in California would be punished and labeled bigots if they don't preach homosexuality or have adverse opinions against gays.

And as for Peach: the point is that heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society. That has nothing to do with anti-miscegenation. That's just the reality.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She might not have been making a Constitutional argument, but I was (especially since gay marriage advocates do try to go there).

And I don't care if a same sex union is moral or not. But I don't want the government in the business of deciding that it's moral or not or rather needlessly promoting sexuality.

How would people that challenge homosexual behavior be abused? Well right now, teachers in California would be punished and labeled bigots if they don't preach homosexuality or have adverse opinions against gays.

And as for Peach: the point is that heterosexual marriage is the bedrock of society. That has nothing to do with anti-miscegenation. That's just the reality.

By legalizing monogamous heterosexual marriage ONLY, the government is already picking and choosing what's moral or immoral.

The morality or immorality of sexual relations outside the confines of legal marriage cannot be meaningfully broken down along heterosexual or homosexual lines.

What is more 'immoral' about two unmarried women or two unmarried men having sex,

compared to an unmarried man having sex with an unmarried woman?