Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?

[Publius1787]

Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?

Most of us know that the U.S. Senate used to be elected by the state legeslatures. The founding fathers did this on purpose so that the states would have a say in government. Of course, this was done away with via the 17th amendment despite the fact that the U.S. House of Represenatives was allready the peoples house which was popularly elected. To date, all congressmen are elected via popular vote and we now have a federal government that caters to popularism at the expense of the 10th Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Today the federal government raises taxes on the states and forces the states to pass laws that the federal government cannot constitutionaly make them do in order to get their money back, an extortion that no doubt our founders wanted to prevent. Moreover, the Supreme Court Justices, Treaty's, and other nominations and Senate duty's are carried out by a popularly elected body opposite the wishes of the founding fathers. Furthermore, in light of the current health care law (Obamacare) being contested by 25, if not currently more, states, would this have been prevented if the states had a say in the federal government as they used to? For those who wonder what happened to the 10th amendment, look no further than the 17th. Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?


Article 1 Section 3: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof

The 17th Amendment: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof

The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[DiamondDave]

Dunno... that is a good question because I like the fact that not all governmental officials are chosen the same way... this way not every official/position is elected by merely popular vote... keeping more in line with the balance of power..

However... this was changed via the amendment process, which I fully support... unlike the changes our government loves to do without constitutional amendment...

So... I guess what I am trying to say.. is that I would support the old way or the current way without much of a gripe... as long as if the change back to the old system would be facilitated thru the amendment process

 

[American Legacy]

The Founders were wiser men than the progressives. Nuff said.

 

[Publius1787]

The Founders were wiser men than the progressives. Nuff said.

Well it is true that progressives passed both the 16th and 17th amendments to impliment sweeping usurpations of liberty and destroy any say in government by the states. Now the federal government taxes the states and forces the states to pass laws that the federal government could not constitutionally do themselves to get that money back in to the states where it came from. Its certainly a violation of the checks and balances that were origionally intended. More importantly today, if there was no 17th Amendment there would be no Obamacare.The progressive era is perhaps one of the worse eras in American history when it came toward the destruction of individual liberty and the begining of the creep toward socialism.

 

[Publius1787]

Dunno... that is a good question because I like the fact that not all governmental officials are chosen the same way... this way not every official/position is elected by merely popular vote... keeping more in line with the balance of power..

However... this was changed via the amendment process, which I fully support... unlike the changes our government loves to do without constitutional amendment...

So... I guess what I am trying to say.. is that I would support the old way or the current way without much of a gripe... as long as if the change back to the old system would be facilitated thru the amendment process

I guess for now on I will add a "Dont Care" option to my polls.

 

[Toro]

No.

 

[The Rabbi]

yes

 

[The Rabbi]

We basically have a problem of too much democracy and not enough responsibility in this country. That's why we're in this mess: everyone wants gov't bennies but thinks someone else should pay for them.
While "consent of the governed" is the cornerstone of our government, that doesn't mean mob rule, which is pretty much what we have.

 

[Oddball]

Absolutely.

The 17th Amendment completely eliminated the veto power of the state legislatures (the people charged with collecting apportioned federal taxes) over federal budgets....This was no accident.

 

[rightwinger]

The voters would never stand for not being able to elect their Senators

We have enough back room dealing thank-you

 

[The Rabbi]

The voters would never stand for not being able to elect their Senators

We have enough back room dealing thank-you

Nobody asked whether it was politically feasible. It probably isn't. Any more than property qualifications, which I also support.

 

[Publius1787]

The voters would never stand for not being able to elect their Senators

We have enough back room dealing thank-you

That makes no sense.

 

[Toro]

The voters would never stand for not being able to elect their Senators

We have enough back room dealing thank-you

That makes no sense.

One of the reasons why appointing Senators was scrapped was because of cronyism and payoffs in the selection process.

Maybe we should go back to having a king. In fact, y'all should just scrap that whole revolution thing and come back into the Commonwealth fold and be ruled from London, just like in the good ol days.

 

[Publius1787]

The voters would never stand for not being able to elect their Senators

We have enough back room dealing thank-you

That makes no sense.

One of the reasons why appointing Senators was scrapped was because of cronyism and payoffs in the selection process.

Maybe we should go back to having a king. In fact, y'all should just scrap that whole revolution thing and come back into the Commonwealth fold and be ruled from London, just like in the good ol days.

What places more power in the central government and thus subscribing to your king comment? Where both the states and the people can be a check and balance of fedeal power? Or just the whims of popularism to which the federal government can extort money from the states until the states do as commanded on things that the federal governmentd lacks the constitutionality to command via federal law? The choice is obvious. There are other ways to pass laws restricting any corruption there may be in the selection process. There is no way to stop the runnaway power of the federal government when you withdraw the states as a check on the balance of power. The people or the states should not be held accountable for the lack of some states to reign in their own corruption.

 

[Publius1787]

We basically have a problem of too much democracy and not enough responsibility in this country. That's why we're in this mess: everyone wants gov't bennies but thinks someone else should pay for them.
While "consent of the governed" is the cornerstone of our government, that doesn't mean mob rule, which is pretty much what we have.

Exactly. Mob rul is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid by having the senate elected by the state legeslatures.

 

[Avatar4321]

I certainly think so. We eliminated the States check on the Federal Government. It's not a coincidence that when that occured, the budget exploded and unfunded mandates started getting pushed on the states.

It's time we restore our government.

 

[Toro]

We basically have a problem of too much democracy and not enough responsibility in this country. That's why we're in this mess: everyone wants gov't bennies but thinks someone else should pay for them.
While "consent of the governed" is the cornerstone of our government, that doesn't mean mob rule, which is pretty much what we have.

Exactly. Mob rul is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid by having the senate elected by the state legeslatures.

The founding fathers didn't want women, blacks or poor people voting either. This isn't the 18th century FFS.

I find it absolutely stunning that the right would even debate restricting voting. When people around the world think of America, they think freedom, which is synonymous with democracy. They don't think "Ruled by landholders." That is what people are trying to escape when they come here. There is no freedom greater than choosing those who rule over you.

 

[Avatar4321]

We basically have a problem of too much democracy and not enough responsibility in this country. That's why we're in this mess: everyone wants gov't bennies but thinks someone else should pay for them.
While "consent of the governed" is the cornerstone of our government, that doesn't mean mob rule, which is pretty much what we have.

Exactly. Mob rul is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid by having the senate elected by the state legeslatures.

The founding fathers didn't want women, blacks or poor people voting either. This isn't the 18th century FFS.

I find it absolutely stunning that the right would even debate restricting voting. When people around the world think of America, they think freedom, which is synonymous with democracy. They don't think "Ruled by landholders." That is what people are trying to escape when they come here. There is no freedom greater than choosing those who rule over you.

How is restoring the State's checks and balances restricting the vote? No one is suggesting that women or anyone else not vote. We are suggesting that the States once again have a check in congress as they should.

 

[Publius1787]

We basically have a problem of too much democracy and not enough responsibility in this country. That's why we're in this mess: everyone wants gov't bennies but thinks someone else should pay for them.
While "consent of the governed" is the cornerstone of our government, that doesn't mean mob rule, which is pretty much what we have.

Exactly. Mob rul is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid by having the senate elected by the state legeslatures.

The founding fathers didn't want women, blacks or poor people voting either. This isn't the 18th century FFS.

I find it absolutely stunning that the right would even debate restricting voting. When people around the world think of America, they think freedom, which is synonymous with democracy. They don't think "Ruled by landholders." That is what people are trying to escape when they come here. There is no freedom greater than choosing those who rule over you.

Please show me where in the constitution that it mentions race or sex in regards to voting. Voting rights were subject to the descression of the states. Besids, your fictional strawman wont work here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man


And whats the point of having two popularly elected bodies? The point was so that both the state and the people can have a say in the federal government. But now, thanks mostly to the 17th Amendment, the 10th amendment is virtually void and the federal governement can tax the citizens of a state and use the peoples money to bribe legislative behavior that the state may deem not in its best interst. Obamacare is a perfect example.

 

[Oddball]

The founding fathers didn't want women, blacks or poor people voting either. This isn't the 18th century FFS.

I find it absolutely stunning that the right would even debate restricting voting. When people around the world think of America, they think freedom, which is synonymous with democracy. They don't think "Ruled by landholders." That is what people are trying to escape when they come here. There is no freedom greater than choosing those who rule over you.

Red herring....A return to Senators appointed by the state legislatures and seated by the Governors would neither restrict voting, nor even deprive anyone of any vote.

Also, the framers were perfectly good with being governed by landholders....They were simply against being a landholder subject to membership in the Lucky Sperm Club.

BTW, we're not supposed to be "ruled over" by de jure government...They are supposed to be the servants and we the masters....There's a reason I use the term "gubmint".