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

[NYcarbineer]

You are wrong. Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms?

It can if it secedes from the union.

Why would it need to secede from the union?

 

[Contumacious]

You are wrong. Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms?

Firstly, the right to life and to defend the same are UNALIENABLE.

Secondly, have you ever heard of the blackmarket? Not even your friends at the KGB were able able to control it.

So STFU.

,

Take a deep breath, calm down. It was legal question.

Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms? What is/are the legal obstacle(s) to a state banning all personal possession of firearms?

Well, the states as well as the federal governments are populated by criminals...before long the fascists/socialists will become a super-majority. Then, there will be no legal obstacle to banning all personal possession of firearms.

.

 

[bripat9643]

You are wrong. Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms?

It can if it secedes from the union.

Why would it need to secede from the union?

Because they are obligated to observe the clauses in the Constitution so long as they are members of the United States. However, nothing in the Constitution prevents them from seceding.

 

[bripat9643]

I used Silver Springs and Arlington because it's an easy example everyone gets. I could just as easily picked New York City and Newark; or Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri; or Texarkana, Texas and Texarkana, Arkansas.

In other words, you could have picked a bunch of cities the are close together geographically. However, there's a reason people live in New Jersey rather than Manhattan. That reason is that they are not quite as insane is the residents of Manhattan and don't want to pay those confiscatory taxes. In other words, the citizens of Newark have common interests that differ from the interests of New Yorkers.

Your examples don't support your point.

 

[bripat9643]

The lines on the map are what makes a state. The states do not represent an organic community of interest. People living in Arlington, Virginia has much more in common with the residents of Silver Springs, Maryland than they do with the residents of Blacksburg.

Like all drawings, a map is a REPRESENTATION of reality, not reality. The lines on the map REPRESENT where the boundaries of the state are. They are NOT "what makes a state".

You need to look up the histories of how the states took on the shapes they have, and why, so that perhaps you might understand that they ARE communities, which chose to form around common interests, whatever their individual components might be geographically close to.

And someone really needs to explain the difference between pictures and reality to you.

They're not communities. The shapes of most of the states are a combination of natural boundaries (like rivers) and pure politics (can you give another go reason for a North Dakota and a South Dakota)?

When communities draw boundaries between themselves, they normally use natural boundaries and come to some arrangement with neighboring communities (pure politics, in other words).

If you think political boundaries are meaningless, then why not simply eliminate the border between the US and Mexico? Isn't that border just as arbitrary and meaningless?

 

[bripat9643]

You know, we could really maximize freedom by amending the Constitution so that every county has two senators.

That would only multiply the number of useless tics.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It can if it secedes from the union.

Why would it need to secede from the union?

Because they are obligated to observe the clauses in the Constitution so long as they are members of the United States. However, nothing in the Constitution prevents them from seceding.

Nonsense.

What prevents me from seceding? What prevents me from declaring my acreage a nation and severing my ties and legal obligations with the US, NYS, my county, my township?

What SPECIFICALLY?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Firstly, the right to life and to defend the same are UNALIENABLE.

Secondly, have you ever heard of the blackmarket? Not even your friends at the KGB were able able to control it.

So STFU.

,

Take a deep breath, calm down. It was legal question.

Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms? What is/are the legal obstacle(s) to a state banning all personal possession of firearms?

Well, the states as well as the federal governments are populated by criminals...before long the fascists/socialists will become a super-majority. Then, there will be no legal obstacle to banning all personal possession of firearms.

.

I'm talking about now. Bripat says the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land, that compliance with it is essentially voluntary. So why can't a state just say we don't like the 2nd amendment,

we're banning all guns?

 

[bripat9643]

Because they are obligated to observe the clauses in the Constitution so long as they are members of the United States. However, nothing in the Constitution prevents them from seceding.

Nonsense.

What prevents me from seceding? What prevents me from declaring my acreage a nation and severing my ties and legal obligations with the US, NYS, my county, my township?

What SPECIFICALLY?

The thing that prevents you from seceding is the same thing that prevented the Confederate States from seceding: the full military power of the U.S. military.

However, the issue here isn't the practical considerations. It's the legal question, and you have utterly failed to support your position on that. Nothing in the Constitution prevents the any state from seceding. Lincoln is the one who broke the law, not the Confederacy.

Lincoln is a war criminal. He deserved to be hanged.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm talking about now. Bripat says the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land, that compliance with it is essentially voluntary. So why can't a state just say we don't like the 2nd amendment,

we're banning all guns?

ROFL! No, I didn't say that. I said there is nothing in the Constitution that bars a state from seceding. So far no one in this thread has produce any credible evidence to the contrary.

 

[Listening]

A bump for an important question.

 

[J.E.D]

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

HELL-to-the-NO

 

[J.E.D]

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.

Citizens choosing their representatives by voting is "mob rule"? How patriotic of you to want to deny citizens their vote.

 

[Listening]

Citizens choosing their representatives by voting is "mob rule"? How patriotic of you to want to deny citizens their vote.

Uhhhmmm....

I think you missed the point of the OP.

This is a federal system where we have government within government. If you look at Federalist Papers 44/45/46, you'll get the idea.

The senate was put in place specifically to prevent the house from taking over.

When we changed the systems of elections via the 17th, we wounded the states and the concept outlined in the 10th amendment.

Power has been flowing to Washington D.C. ever since.

Pure and simple.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Citizens choosing their representatives by voting is "mob rule"? How patriotic of you to want to deny citizens their vote.

Uhhhmmm....

I think you missed the point of the OP.

This is a federal system where we have government within government. If you look at Federalist Papers 44/45/46, you'll get the idea.

The senate was put in place specifically to prevent the house from taking over.

When we changed the systems of elections via the 17th, we wounded the states and the concept outlined in the 10th amendment.

Power has been flowing to Washington D.C. ever since.

Pure and simple.

Have you not been watching this twit's posts? He doesn't care about the point, the logic, or the reasons behind anything. He's just here to throw out buzzwords.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The unintended consequence of the 17th Amendment was the politicization of the Senate whose original intent was to be apolitical. The partisan deadlock we seen now is evidence of that.

The Constitutional doctrine of ‘the House proposes, the Senate disposes’ clearly indicates the role of the Senate was to act as a check on inappropriate legislation from the House and to otherwise send legislation to the president unaltered.

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Article II, Section 7.

With senators now subject to popular vote they feel compelled to involve themselves in every legislative act, including altering or blocking legislation in the context of their re-election efforts, not what’s best for the Nation.

It is highly unlikely, however, that repealing the 17th Amendment would ‘set things straight’ after all this time and the desire to do so is clearly motivated by a perception of partisan advantage.

 

[J.E.D]

Citizens choosing their representatives by voting is "mob rule"? How patriotic of you to want to deny citizens their vote.

Uhhhmmm....

I think you missed the point of the OP.

This is a federal system where we have government within government. If you look at Federalist Papers 44/45/46, you'll get the idea.

The senate was put in place specifically to prevent the house from taking over.

When we changed the systems of elections via the 17th, we wounded the states and the concept outlined in the 10th amendment.

Power has been flowing to Washington D.C. ever since.

Pure and simple.

No, I didn't miss the point, I just disagree. I don't want a state legislature deciding who gets to represent my state in the senate. That would be gov't deciding who is in gov't, as opposed to citizens deciding who is in gov't. That is a scenario which will invite corruption and cronyism.

 

[J.E.D]

The unintended consequence of the 17th Amendment was the politicization of the Senate whose original intent was to be apolitical. The partisan deadlock we seen now is evidence of that.

The Constitutional doctrine of ‘the House proposes, the Senate disposes’ clearly indicates the role of the Senate was to act as a check on inappropriate legislation from the House and to otherwise send legislation to the president unaltered.

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Article II, Section 7.

With senators now subject to popular vote they feel compelled to involve themselves in every legislative act, including altering or blocking legislation in the context of their re-election efforts, not what’s best for the Nation.

It is highly unlikely, however, that repealing the 17th Amendment would ‘set things straight’ after all this time and the desire to do so is clearly motivated by a perception of partisan advantage.

You have some good points, and in an ideal world, that may be a good way to go. I, personally, am not comfortable with a state legislature deciding who represents my state in the senate.

 

[J.E.D]

Citizens choosing their representatives by voting is "mob rule"? How patriotic of you to want to deny citizens their vote.

Uhhhmmm....

I think you missed the point of the OP.

This is a federal system where we have government within government. If you look at Federalist Papers 44/45/46, you'll get the idea.

The senate was put in place specifically to prevent the house from taking over.

When we changed the systems of elections via the 17th, we wounded the states and the concept outlined in the 10th amendment.

Power has been flowing to Washington D.C. ever since.

Pure and simple.

Have you not been watching this twit's posts? He doesn't care about the point, the logic, or the reasons behind anything. He's just here to throw out buzzwords.

Right, my opinions are merely 'buzzwords'. And your posts are pure genius. Sit down and shut up.

 

[Kuros]

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

The Founders are not better judges of what happens today than we are, especially after we consult the Founders' thoughts and opinions.

^
(Important: The Founders would actually agree with this statement)