CDZ Repeal The 17th

[JakeStarkey]

"Something was stolen some time back by "progressive" democrats"

Another ridiculous lie from the right, inconsistent with 'clean debate.'

And whatever the merits of repealing the 17th Amendment in the context of a republican form of government and original intent, such a proposal is made by the partisan right in bad faith.

Republicans know that they'll likely continue to control the majority of state houses for the foreseeable future, and with such control of a majority of state legislatures, so too will they retain control of the Senate.

Do think the same "type" of person would be appointed by the states as would be elected by the people of the state.

It seems to me that the basic structural function of senators under the two scenarios (and their general accountability) would be different.

Good point. The majority party state leges would appoint puppets who would serve their masters, not the people.

Who would be their masters ? The state legislators ? Who are elected by who ?

The corporations that control the majority party, who elect their clowns by fooling the electorate.
It is much easier to control Rhode Island than the country.

And it is not going to happen anyway.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How did they give it away?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Something was stolen some time back by "progressive" democrats"

Another ridiculous lie from the right, inconsistent with 'clean debate.'

And whatever the merits of repealing the 17th Amendment in the context of a republican form of government and original intent, such a proposal is made by the partisan right in bad faith.

Republicans know that they'll likely continue to control the majority of state houses for the foreseeable future, and with such control of a majority of state legislatures, so too will they retain control of the Senate.

Do think the same "type" of person would be appointed by the states as would be elected by the people of the state.

It seems to me that the basic structural function of senators under the two scenarios (and their general accountability) would be different.

Good point. The majority party state leges would appoint puppets who would serve their masters, not the people.

Who would be their masters ? The state legislators ? Who are elected by who ?

The corporations that control the majority party, who elect their clowns by fooling the electorate.
It is much easier to control Rhode Island than the country.

And it is not going to happen anyway.

I really don't know what you are talking about here.

The same electorate that elects local leaders also (presently) elects senators (and I would venture to say that the senate is currently rolling in clowns). I am confused by what you are saying.

What is not going to happen ?

You have that little respect for the people of Rhode Island ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How did they give it away?

What are you referencing ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

How did they give it away?

What are you referencing ?

If you cannot tell, how can I answer. I am very clear and precise in my point. So please try again. We are talking about the corrupt lobbies who more easily controlled state leges than the national one.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

How did they give it away?

What are you referencing ?

If you cannot tell, how can I answer. I am very clear and precise in my point. So please try again. We are talking about the corrupt lobbies who more easily controlled state leges than the national one.

I don't see how that connects to your original post.

But, to your point, I don't see how you can make that claim. Corrupt corporations do pretty good at controlling the current crop of senators.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How did they give it away?

What are you referencing ?

If you cannot tell, how can I answer. I am very clear and precise in my point. So please try again. We are talking about the corrupt lobbies who more easily controlled state leges than the national one.

I don't see how that connects to your original post.

But, to your point, I don't see how you can make that claim. Corrupt corporations do pretty good at controlling the current crop of senators.

Yep, and they can do it more easily at the state level. If you can't see that, then study congress and business in the last three decades of the 19th century, which was the beginning point for the amendment's eventual success.

I am concerned you have shown no reason at all to return the election of senators to the state legislatures. It's your opinion, but you have not given evidence that should happen.

 

[longknife]

I think the 17th was probably worse than even Prohibition.

The very foundations of the USA are representation by the people through both direct votes for representatives and indirect for Senators through state legislatures.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I think the 17th was probably worse than even Prohibition.

The very foundations of the USA are representation by the people through both direct votes for representatives and indirect for Senators through state legislatures.

In the beginning that was certainly so, and with the corruption of the Senate through the corruption of the legislatures in choosing senators, the amendment was ratified.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

A super-majority of the people agreed to change the Constitution to allow the people to directly vote for their senators.

It's been that way for over a hundred years, and even before the 17th Amendment was passed, more than half the states had primary elections for Senator, whereby the people would cast their choice...

What some conservatives want is go back to the days of the 19th Century when even that wasn't happening, and tell Americans the people can't vote, and some bizarre notion a Senator is less corruptible or beholden to special interest if a State legislator picks them.

Riiight.

What's you're pitching is the Koch brother's Inc. dreeeeam world. That's why the CEC cons love it.

How did you arrive at the conclusion that "a super majority" of the people agreed to change........? What is a supermajority ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I think the 17th was probably worse than even Prohibition.

The very foundations of the USA are representation by the people through both direct votes for representatives and indirect for Senators through state legislatures.

Yes, and now somehow people kid themselves into thinking they actually have more control over their senators.

Isn't that a laugh ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"with the corruption of the Senate through the corruption of the legislatures in choosing senators, the amendment was ratified" and nothing has changed to make us think the state lege choosing senators will improve anything.

 

[longknife]

I think the 17th was probably worse than even Prohibition.

The very foundations of the USA are representation by the people through both direct votes for representatives and indirect for Senators through state legislatures.

Yes, and now somehow people kid themselves into thinking they actually have more control over their senators.

Isn't that a laugh ?

Have you ever bothered to study the history of this republic? Or do you just spout liberal mantras?

Senators were originally there to REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE VARIOUS STATES! That's exactly why there were not given the authority to formulate budgetary legislation - that was left up to the People's Representatives.