repealing the 17th admendment

[Truthmatters]

pretty lame SJ.

There is a reason this was passed by all the states and why it has not been repealed or found unconstitutional.

I doubt you would get more than 2% of the American public to agree with undoing it.

 

[Oddball]

 

[ABikerSailor]

How is having elected officials pick them rather than the peopel directly electing them less represntation of the state?

Have you watched the news in the past 3 days lately? Apparently not, otherwise you would have seen the problem with this.

It starts with the Supreme Court's decision to allow unlimited political campaign contributions from corporations (as the corporations are now determined to have "rights"), either in support, or in opposition to their choice.

Basically, that means that corporations can buy politicians, and put 'em in their back pocket, to be pulled out only when the corporation needs a good puppet show for the people.

See the problem with state officials picking rather than electing?

Unless, of course, you think that returning to 1776 and being an indentured servant is cool

 

[Truthmatters]

How is having elected officials pick them rather than the peopel directly electing them less represntation of the state?

Have you watched the news in the past 3 days lately? Apparently not, otherwise you would have seen the problem with this.

It starts with the Supreme Court's decision to allow unlimited political campaign contributions from corporations (as the corporations are now determined to have "rights"), either in support, or in opposition to their choice.

Basically, that means that corporations can buy politicians, and put 'em in their back pocket, to be pulled out only when the corporation needs a good puppet show for the people.

See the problem with state officials picking rather than electing?

Unless, of course, you think that returning to 1776 and being an indentured servant is cool

Are you so naive as to think that Govenors cant be bribed?

 

[slackjawed]

most of the states, as I posted before did have popular elections for senators. The results of these elections were then 'sealed' by the state assemblies.
Most, I listed the notable exceptions.
The states lost the ability to recall senators based upon their performance.
That introduced more money and more corruption into the process of selecting federal senators.
That also made senators less caring of voting for bills that ended up violating their own state constitution. It made the senators capable of voting for bills that would require states, theirs included, spend money to meet a federal mandate because they didn't have to fear recall.
In only a few states, as early as 1841, was the state senator really elected by the state assemblies. In most states, there was a popular election that was then 'approved' and 'signed' by the state assembly.
The real damage of the 10th is the loss of the recall power, thereby losing control over state spending as well as introducing more corruption and money into the process.
The exact opposite as the progressives claimed when campaigning for the 10th, and the opposite of what the progressives claim today.

 

[Truthmatters]

One person having the control to remove a senator fro any reason.

no thanks.

BTW, the whole reason the thing passed in all states was the shenanigans that were being pulled in the states with this power.

 

[slackjawed]

One person having the control to remove a senator fro any reason.

no thanks.

BTW, the whole reason the thing passed in all states was the shenanigans that were being pulled in the states with this power.

It was a populist movement that actually started with the formal introduction of a bill to do so in 1826.
The only state that had as it's policy to allow a sitting gov that much control was wyoming.
Don't ask me why it was that way in wyoming, but it was and I don't know why.

How about addressing the loss of the recall power, that's what really matters.
the election debate was a red herring during the campaign to pass the 10th and it still is.
Most states held popular elections for their senators as early as the 1830's.

 

[Annie]

Can someone please explain why so many people advocate for this? I don't quite understand why people don't want to be able to vote for their own officials

If not for the 17th, Brown would have lost.

 

[slackjawed]

Can someone please explain why so many people advocate for this? I don't quite understand why people don't want to be able to vote for their own officials

If not for the 17th, Brown would have lost.

I think that's accurate.

 

[ABikerSailor]

How is having elected officials pick them rather than the peopel directly electing them less represntation of the state?

Have you watched the news in the past 3 days lately? Apparently not, otherwise you would have seen the problem with this.

It starts with the Supreme Court's decision to allow unlimited political campaign contributions from corporations (as the corporations are now determined to have "rights"), either in support, or in opposition to their choice.

Basically, that means that corporations can buy politicians, and put 'em in their back pocket, to be pulled out only when the corporation needs a good puppet show for the people.

See the problem with state officials picking rather than electing?

Unless, of course, you think that returning to 1776 and being an indentured servant is cool

Are you so naive as to think that Govenors cant be bribed?

OF COURSE they can be bribed! Remember Rod Blowjob Bitch? He was bribed to sell a senate seat.

Notice I didn't specify the variety of politician, I just said politician. That is why it scares me, because if a corporation puts a state governor, or a congress critter on their payroll, you can bet your bottom dollar that corporations are going to start buying politicians, and forcing them to do what the stockholder, rather than the people, say.

We'll have the best government money can buy, of the people, for the rich, with equality only for the top 10 percent.

Ever hear of a movie called Gattica?

 

[Contumacious]

Can someone please explain why so many people advocate for this? I don't quite understand why people don't want to be able to vote for their own officials

Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


The following states have not ratified the amendment:

1. Alabama
2. Kentucky
3. Mississippi
4. Virginia
5. South Carolina
6. Georgia
7. Maryland
8. Delaware
9. Rhode Island
10. Florida


.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Are you sure about the right of states to recall a senator like that? this is the first I heard of that. I thought six year term meant six year term

 

[slackjawed]

Are you sure about the right of states to recall a senator like that? this is the first I heard of that. I thought six year term meant six year term

It does now. Prior to the ratification of the 17th, the states had recall power.
The 17th changed that and now impeachment at the federal level is required.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Can someone please explain why so many people advocate for this? I don't quite understand why people don't want to be able to vote for their own officials

Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


The following states have not ratified the amendment:

1. Alabama
2. Kentucky
3. Mississippi
4. Virginia
5. South Carolina
6. Georgia
7. Maryland
8. Delaware
9. Rhode Island
10. Florida


.

Interesting.........those also happen to be the states with the most people who don't like a black president!

Shit........"Fear of a Black Planet" was mis-named.......it shoulda been "Fear of a Black President"!

 

[Oddball]

 

[blu]

 

[manu1959]

How is having elected officials pick them rather than the peopel directly electing them less represntation of the state?

Have you watched the news in the past 3 days lately? Apparently not, otherwise you would have seen the problem with this.

It starts with the Supreme Court's decision to allow unlimited political campaign contributions from corporations (as the corporations are now determined to have "rights"), either in support, or in opposition to their choice.

Basically, that means that corporations can buy politicians, and put 'em in their back pocket, to be pulled out only when the corporation needs a good puppet show for the people.

See the problem with state officials picking rather than electing?

Unless, of course, you think that returning to 1776 and being an indentured servant is cool

Are you so naive as to think that Govenors cant be bribed?

i am only worried about the gop one...the dem ones not so much...........