Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[JDzBrain]

That's your opinion, it is garbled and confused in your reasoning, and makes absolutely no compelling argument for change.

End of story.

IT'S NOT CHANGE....IT'S RESTORATION!!!!!!!!!!

Damn!

The founders intended it to work that way. State reps electing Senators caused the voters of the states to be INVESTED in the local and state elections and FORCED Senators to represent the interest of the state representatives that sends them in order to keep their job. And the stiinkin' thinkin' of "corrupt state representatives" sending corrupt Senators is completely offset by the ability of the citizens of the states to track and hold to account their state representatives BECAUSE OF THE INFORMATION AGE.

There is NOTHING confused or muddled about that. The only thing that is confused or muddle is how people continuously harp about how the world has change and the Constitution was written over 200 years ago refuse to accept that those very changes...like the internet...make the principles set forth in the Constitution even more important and EASIER to maintain!

THAT'S the end of the story.

 

[JakeStarkey]

That's your opinion, it is garbled and confused in your reasoning, and makes absolutely no compelling argument for change.

End of story.

IT'S NOT CHANGE....IT'S RESTORATION!!!!!!!!!!

Damn!

The founders intended it to work that way. State reps electing Senators caused the voters of the states to be INVESTED in the local and state elections and FORCED Senators to represent the interest of the state representatives that sends them in order to keep their job. And the stiinkin' thinkin' of "corrupt state representatives" sending corrupt Senators is completely offset by the ability of the citizens of the states to track and hold to account their state representatives BECAUSE OF THE INFORMATION AGE.

There is NOTHING confused or muddled about that. The only thing that is confused or muddle is how people continuously harp about how the world has change and the Constitution was written over 200 years ago refuse to accept that those very changes...like the internet...make the principles set forth in the Constitution even more important and EASIER to maintain!

THAT'S the end of the story.

Nope, you are wrong. You have given no compelling reason whatsoever. The development of The Information Age gives each voter the opportunity to become fully vested in the issues of the day and makes that voter far more reliable in voting for Senators than the hacks of a Senate party.

 

[JDzBrain]

Ok...so the TEA Party (EXCLUSIVELY founded and driven by the internet) doesn't exist, the Occupy Movement (founded and organized over the internet FROM CANADA) never happened, the USMB does not exist, The THOUSANDS of Town Hall Forums don't exist, Huffington Post is a hard copy "news" journal...not a left wing internet rag, Center for American Progress is brick and mortar political action org...NOT, Obama didn't carry a Blackberry to tweet Barry's day when he ran for pres and on and on and on. Yep...your right. The internet is not having ANY effect on the political face of this country....WRONG!

Dude, this discussion is obviously done. 'Nunt nuh' and 'is not' are NOT convincing arguments. They are the responses of those without a base to support their position. The last vestige of those who would ask you to prove a negative by asking you, "When did you stop beating your wife?"

And in all honesty, I've addressed every aspect of this with a to b to c logic...and you still claim not. THAT...is the same as nunt nuh!

 

[JakeStarkey]

1) I never said that "The internet is not having ANY effect on the political face of this country. . . ."., so stop lying. (2) The internet age means that an informed We the People can make better decisions than our state legislatures. (3) The Information Age, ipso facto, does not require the 17th to be changed. No compelling reason has been given. (

 

[MuadDib]

The 17th amendment gives power back to the people of the state, why this is still debated is absurd to me given important issues that are never discussed. When the do nothing congress does something we can then take them serious. I can just picture some of the loonies state houses would select - you gotta be kidding or lost in mental guerrilla warfare with the federal government if you think repeal makes any sense.

The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Until the Constitution was amended, and that was what was intended and has been for almost 100 years. Nothing before it now counts.

 

[del]

The 17th amendment gives power back to the people of the state, why this is still debated is absurd to me given important issues that are never discussed. When the do nothing congress does something we can then take them serious. I can just picture some of the loonies state houses would select - you gotta be kidding or lost in mental guerrilla warfare with the federal government if you think repeal makes any sense.

The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.

i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.

 

[MuadDib]

The 17th amendment gives power back to the people of the state, why this is still debated is absurd to me given important issues that are never discussed. When the do nothing congress does something we can then take them serious. I can just picture some of the loonies state houses would select - you gotta be kidding or lost in mental guerrilla warfare with the federal government if you think repeal makes any sense.

The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.

i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.

Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.

 

[del]

The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.

i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.

Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.

i take it you have an obama sticker on your car

 

[MuadDib]

i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.

Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.

i take it you have an obama sticker on your car

Nope! Don't have a Romney sticker either.

 

[JDzBrain]

The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.

Dead right, but he's he's being intellectually dishonest and moving the goal post.

Typical for those who don't have facts to support their assertions.

 

[del]

Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.

i take it you have an obama sticker on your car

Nope! Don't have a Romney sticker either.

you should get one

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Senate was never intended to be under the power of the voters. That's what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate was intended to be appointed by the state legislators to represent the interests of the states.

i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.

Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.

The government never jumped track on the 18th. We the People and our elected legislators amended the Constitution to create what had become a defect.

 

[MuadDib]

i realize that you have all the intellectual agility of a doorknob, but you've got a better chance of running into elvis at the local wawa than you do of repealing the 17th.

Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.

The government never jumped track on the 18th. We the People and our elected legislators amended the Constitution to create what had become a defect.

The Federal government not only jumped the track, it went off of the bridge and landed in the river on the 18th Amendment. There's absolutely no good reson why a prohibition amendment should have ever been in the Constitution. If the poeple and Congress wanted to prohibit alcohol, it could have been done with a simple Federal statute.

Are there any Constitutional amendments prohibiting marijuana? No.

The 17th and 18th Amendments both were the result of Progressive meddling. Actually, the same can be said for marijuana prohibition.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Until the American people wake up and educate themselves as to where their government jumped the track and decide to put it back on course, there's probably not much of a chance of repealing it. But Amendments can be repealed. Take the 18th for example.

The government never jumped track on the 18th. We the People and our elected legislators amended the Constitution to create what had become a defect.

The Federal government not only jumped the track, it went off of the bridge and landed in the river on the 18th Amendment. There's absolutely no good reson why a prohibition amendment should have ever been in the Constitution. If the poeple and Congress wanted to prohibit alcohol, it could have been done with a simple Federal statute.

Are there any Constitutional amendments prohibiting marijuana? No.

The 17th and 18th Amendments both were the result of Progressive meddling. Actually, the same can be said for marijuana prohibition.

No, your reasoning is false. We the People ratified the Amendment, making it imperative for the Government to enforce it. That is how a constitutional republic works.

That you dislike it is no ground to overturn it.

 

[MuadDib]

The government never jumped track on the 18th. We the People and our elected legislators amended the Constitution to create what had become a defect.

The Federal government not only jumped the track, it went off of the bridge and landed in the river on the 18th Amendment. There's absolutely no good reson why a prohibition amendment should have ever been in the Constitution. If the poeple and Congress wanted to prohibit alcohol, it could have been done with a simple Federal statute.

Are there any Constitutional amendments prohibiting marijuana? No.

The 17th and 18th Amendments both were the result of Progressive meddling. Actually, the same can be said for marijuana prohibition.

No, your reasoning is false. We the People ratified the Amendment, making it imperative for the Government to enforce it. That is how a constitutional republic works.

That you dislike it is no ground to overturn it.

I dislike it because it's not working. Where's that budget we've been waiting for from the Senate for the last 3 years?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Federal government not only jumped the track, it went off of the bridge and landed in the river on the 18th Amendment. There's absolutely no good reson why a prohibition amendment should have ever been in the Constitution. If the poeple and Congress wanted to prohibit alcohol, it could have been done with a simple Federal statute.

Are there any Constitutional amendments prohibiting marijuana? No.

The 17th and 18th Amendments both were the result of Progressive meddling. Actually, the same can be said for marijuana prohibition.

No, your reasoning is false. We the People ratified the Amendment, making it imperative for the Government to enforce it. That is how a constitutional republic works.

That you dislike it is no ground to overturn it.

I dislike it because it's not working. Where's that budget we've been waiting for from the Senate for the last 3 years?

The state legislatures will not stop the likes such as Reid and McConnell being selected and continuing the bickering.

 

[MuadDib]

No, your reasoning is false. We the People ratified the Amendment, making it imperative for the Government to enforce it. That is how a constitutional republic works.

That you dislike it is no ground to overturn it.

I dislike it because it's not working. Where's that budget we've been waiting for from the Senate for the last 3 years?

The state legislatures will not stop the likes such as Reid and McConnell being selected and continuing the bickering.

How do you know this? Do you have a magic crystal ball or something?

 

[JakeStarkey]

SNAP!!!! Thank you for falling into this. How do you know that the 17th is not serving the people today, the descendants of We the People who passed it, and how do you know the state legislatures will return the right type of senators if the 17th is repealed? "Do you have a magic crystal ball or something."

Muaddib, you never made a sensible case that (1) the 17th should never have been ratified, and (2) that it should be abolished now. You just keep stating that you simply know.

 

[MuadDib]

SNAP!!!! Thank you for falling into this. How do you know that the 17th is not serving the people today, the descendants of We the People who passed it, and how do you know the state legislatures will return the right type of senators if the 17th is repealed? "Do you have a magic crystal ball or something."

Muaddib, you never made a sensible case that (1) the 17th should never have been ratified, and (2) that it should be abolished now. You just keep stating that you simply know.

Simple! Where is the budget bill? The budget is the most basic function of the legislature. Read Article I of the Constitution.

To balance the budget, Congress is going to have to cut some entitlements that should never have been enacted in the first place. If they cut them, Senators running for reelection are not going to be popular with the voters. Senators appointed by the states wouldn't have to worry about that. It's in the interests of the states for the Feds to get their fiscal houses in order.