CDZ Repeal The 17th

[Sun Devil 92]

Then use the popular amendment process, or the state allows a referendum. Still from the bottom up.

Thanks for admitting your earlier misstatement.

Yes, you were wrong. It is still from the bottom up; it is progressive and popular.

Yes, thank you for admitting that we are a democratic republic.

It's never been utilized. So it isn't so popular after all.

You might want to brush up.

You have not a clue, do you? Hang in there, and you will catch the swing of it.

I've watched you do this with others...and embarrass yourself.

I am not interested in your opinions. When you've got a case...make it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Are you talking about amending the state or federal constitution ?

State

I was making reference to (from memory) a popular amendment procedure that can be utilized to bypass that corrupt cesspool we now call the U.S. Congress.

In this, 2/3 of the states pass something (not sure what) calling for a national convention that would allow for consideration of amendments independent of congress. I don't know that a state has to have 2/3 votes to be a part of this.

They tried this year but were 2 or 3 Govs short. 2016 we can finish that shortage and we NEED to.

That's the right of any group that controls state houses.

I just hope nobody thinks that somehow the issues like our federal deficit will suddenly go away just because we pass that kind of amendment.

It's going to take a lot of time and a lot of fresh blood to get that kind of thing under control.

If the states can garner more power by extension, since most states have a balanced budget amendment, it could happen quickly

I don't have information on how states compare to the fed in terms of spending. But, if they attempted to transfer responsibility for a lot of federal programs to themselves....they'd be raising taxes like crazy.

Sooner or later, we have to pay off the credit card.

I am not sure how a balanced budget will work out in those situations.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then use the popular amendment process, or the state allows a referendum. Still from the bottom up.

Thanks for admitting your earlier misstatement.

Yes, you were wrong. It is still from the bottom up; it is progressive and popular.

Yes, thank you for admitting that we are a democratic republic.

It's never been utilized. So it isn't so popular after all.

You might want to brush up.

You have not a clue, do you? Hang in there, and you will catch the swing of it.

I've watched you do this with others...and embarrass yourself. I am not interested in your opinions. When you've got a case...make it.

I don't treat sillies like your comments on the popular will seriously, because they refuse to recognize the context of the terms. You don't get your own definitions. When you have made a point, I will answer seriously. Act the jerk,you get jerked.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Include the 19th with it. Our country really started going to hell after that was passed.

States rights were there to protect YOUR rights. YOUR rights only came under attack AFTER federal government STOLE states rights.

People are constantly complaining about the power of the parties. This idea would give them even more by returning to the days of the party bosses.

But it would give them local control. That IS why it was framed that way.

So let's take a step back.

Here is a question I really don't know the answer to.

When a state votes to ratify a constitutional amendment....does it only require a simple majority ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Thanks for admitting your earlier misstatement.

Yes, you were wrong. It is still from the bottom up; it is progressive and popular.

Yes, thank you for admitting that we are a democratic republic.

It's never been utilized. So it isn't so popular after all.

You might want to brush up.

You have not a clue, do you? Hang in there, and you will catch the swing of it.

I've watched you do this with others...and embarrass yourself. I am not interested in your opinions. When you've got a case...make it.

I don't treat sillies like your comments on the popular will seriously, because they refuse to recognize the context of the terms. You don't get your own definitions. When you have made a point, I will answer seriously. Act the jerk,you get jerked.

And you embarrass yourself yet again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And you embarrass yourself yet again.

I accept your admission of defeat. Let's move along.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Something was stolen some time back by "progressive" democrats and I for one think it's time YOU took it back. The power of the states were STOLEN from you and they are important because the power of the state PROTECTS you from the abuse of the federal government.

A short video here on what was stolen and how it was stolen and WHY it was stolen. It BELONGS to YOU, maybe it's time YOU took it BACK.

I watched the video and there is no claim made that anything was stolen.

Again....I'll repeate.....the states knowingly (and foolishly) gave up the right to appoint senators.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And you embarrass yourself yet again.

I accept your admission of defeat. Let's move along.

If you defeated anyone, which you haven't, it would be your first time.

Keep at it....at least you are consistent.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sun Devil, keep on looking silly.

When you start actually discussing points, I will let you know.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sun Devil, keep on looking silly.

When you start actually discussing points, I will let you know.

Is the irony of this post apparent to anyone else ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So let's take a step back.

Here is a question I really don't know the answer to.

When a state votes to ratify a constitutional amendment....does it only require a simple majority ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sun Devil, keep on looking silly.

When you start actually discussing points, I will let you know.

Is the irony of this post apparent to anyone else ?

Self ironic, yes. Start being relevant, please.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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 ?

 

[NYcarbineer]

By RWnut logic, Senators would then be 'unelected'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If this were to be implemented, some of you might be surprised to find out that it would benefit Democrats.

Why? Because it would make state legislature elections more important, and the more important an election the higher the turnout,

and higher turnout more often than not benefits Democrats, because Democrats actually outnumber Republicans nationally, but Democrats are also less likely to vote.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Something was stolen some time back by "progressive" democrats and I for one think it's time YOU took it back.

The 17th Amendment was passed by the 62nd Congress which was comprised of a Democratic House and a Republican Senate during the administration of William Howard Taft, who was quite conservative.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If this were to be implemented, some of you might be surprised to find out that it would benefit Democrats.

Why? Because it would make state legislature elections more important, and the more important an election the higher the turnout,

and higher turnout more often than not benefits Democrats, because Democrats actually outnumber Republicans nationally, but Democrats are also less likely to vote.

Maybe...maybe not.....

But what an interesting thought. Consider how state elections might be influenced as legislators put forth who'd they'd support for the senate and why as part of their platform.

But, it would be interesting if democrats could be influenced to support it for simply this reason.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Something was stolen some time back by "progressive" democrats and I for one think it's time YOU took it back.

The 17th Amendment was passed by the 62nd Congress which was comprised of a Democratic House and a Republican Senate during the administration of William Howard Taft, who was quite conservative.

And the states ratified it.

They gave it away.