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

[rightwinger]

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.

They currently do

They have two Senators and an allocated number of Congressmen

 

[Toro]

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".

And you'd use FUCKInG GUbZmint if you appointed Senators. FFS we appoint Senators in Canada and it's a disaster. True, the system is different, but the idea that those appointed wouldn't be cronies who've donated a ton of money to the politicians is hilarious. I love how ambassadors are selected in this country BTW. Write big cheques and you can live in a comfy residence in Dublin on the taxpayers dime. As if it would be any different in the Senate.

 

[Publius1787]

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".

Yes. They beleived that if you allowed non freeholdres the vote they would corrupt the constitution, the polititions, and the law, with people that wanted to gain power through taking freedoms and wealth away from one group of citizens and giving it to another (The modern Democrat Party). James Madison makes this clear in his notes on the federal convention. They by no means wanted the people who pay no taxes to determin what government services should be provided and paid for by those who do.

 

[Toro]

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".

Yes. They beleived that if you allowed non freeholdres the vote they would corrupt the constitution, the polititions, and the law, with people that wanted to gain power through taking freedoms and wealth away from one group of citizens and giving it to another (The modern Democrat Party). James Madison makes this clear in his notes on the federal convention. They by no means wanted the people who pay no taxes to determin what government services should be provided and paid for by those who do.

Right. As if landholders aren't a venal group who will use legislative powers to bend laws to their interest.

 

[del]

the less that is left in the hands of a state legislature, the better off we are.

state legislators are typically the most venal, corrupt, sleazy, one way assholes on the planet.

most of them would sell their mother's uterus for a buck and throw in the ovaries.

obama was a proud member of the IL state legislature, IIRC.

QED

 

[Publius1787]

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".

And you'd use FUCKInG GUbZmint if you appointed Senators. FFS we appoint Senators in Canada and it's a disaster. True, the system is different, but the idea that those appointed wouldn't be cronies who've donated a ton of money to the politicians is hilarious. I love how ambassadors are selected in this country BTW. Write big cheques and you can live in a comfy residence in Dublin on the taxpayers dime. As if it would be any different in the Senate.

The states have the right to make laws on campaign finance and corruption in any manner they please. Failure to do so by one should not be the damnation of all of the states. It is a common concensus that popularly elected senators was a huge mistake. You could either have a house that represents the people and a Senate that represents the states or two bodies that represent only the people without regard to the states. Checks and balances are much better placed in the former. There is no need to have two popularly elected bodies.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yes. They beleived that if you allowed non freeholdres the vote they would corrupt the constitution, the polititions, and the law, with people that wanted to gain power through taking freedoms and wealth away from one group of citizens and giving it to another (The modern Democrat Party). James Madison makes this clear in his notes on the federal convention. They by no means wanted the people who pay no taxes to determin what government services should be provided and paid for by those who do.

No Representation without taxation. It's a good policy. People who have no stake in the government don't care what happens.

 

[Publius1787]

the less that is left in the hands of a state legislature, the better off we are.

state legislators are typically the most venal, corrupt, sleazy, one way assholes on the planet.

most of them would sell their mother's uterus for a buck and throw in the ovaries.

obama was a proud member of the IL state legislature, IIRC.

QED

If you think people dont know enough about their congress they certainly dont know anything about their state legislatures. Especially since the 17th Amendment detached the states from the federal government, giving the federal government a power to manipulate state laws and not the other way around. Thats ass backwards if you ask me.

 

[Avatar4321]

obama was a proud member of the IL state legislature, IIRC.

QED

That's a pretty darn good argument against.

 

[eflatminor]

With the possible exception of prohibition, the 17th is the worst amendment set upon The People of this country. Well, at least they took the time to amend the Constitution, something our dear leaders these days don't even bother with.

 

[Toro]

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".

And you'd use FUCKInG GUbZmint if you appointed Senators. FFS we appoint Senators in Canada and it's a disaster. True, the system is different, but the idea that those appointed wouldn't be cronies who've donated a ton of money to the politicians is hilarious. I love how ambassadors are selected in this country BTW. Write big cheques and you can live in a comfy residence in Dublin on the taxpayers dime. As if it would be any different in the Senate.

The states have the right to make laws on campaign finance and corruption in any manner they please. Failure to do so by one should not be the damnation of all of the states. It is a common concensus that popularly elected senators was a huge mistake. You could either have a house that represents the people and a Senate that represents the states or two bodies that represent only the people without regard to the states. Checks and balances are much better placed in the former. There is no need to have two popularly elected bodies.

It is a common consensus that a popularly elected Senate was a mistake? By whom? I've heard the exact opposite whenever I've heard scholars talking about it.

An appointed upper chamber occurs in the British Parliamentary system and it's a joke.

 

[Publius1787]

Yes. They beleived that if you allowed non freeholdres the vote they would corrupt the constitution, the polititions, and the law, with people that wanted to gain power through taking freedoms and wealth away from one group of citizens and giving it to another (The modern Democrat Party). James Madison makes this clear in his notes on the federal convention. They by no means wanted the people who pay no taxes to determin what government services should be provided and paid for by those who do.

No Representation without taxation. It's a good policy. People who have no stake in the government don't care what happens.

Thats why the welfare vote always goes to the democrats. The Democrat party as it stands today is compleatly embodied in every principle that our founders wanted to prevent. Being able to vote on your own welfare check or being able to vote for services that benefit you but arent paid for by you is certainly a conflict of interist. Going back to the 17th Amendment debate, states should not be bribed with their own money to pass laws that arent in their best interst.

 

[Toro]

Yes. They beleived that if you allowed non freeholdres the vote they would corrupt the constitution, the polititions, and the law, with people that wanted to gain power through taking freedoms and wealth away from one group of citizens and giving it to another (The modern Democrat Party). James Madison makes this clear in his notes on the federal convention. They by no means wanted the people who pay no taxes to determin what government services should be provided and paid for by those who do.

No Representation without taxation. It's a good policy. People who have no stake in the government don't care what happens.

Everyone pays taxes.

 

[Publius1787]

And you'd use FUCKInG GUbZmint if you appointed Senators. FFS we appoint Senators in Canada and it's a disaster. True, the system is different, but the idea that those appointed wouldn't be cronies who've donated a ton of money to the politicians is hilarious. I love how ambassadors are selected in this country BTW. Write big cheques and you can live in a comfy residence in Dublin on the taxpayers dime. As if it would be any different in the Senate.

The states have the right to make laws on campaign finance and corruption in any manner they please. Failure to do so by one should not be the damnation of all of the states. It is a common concensus that popularly elected senators was a huge mistake. You could either have a house that represents the people and a Senate that represents the states or two bodies that represent only the people without regard to the states. Checks and balances are much better placed in the former. There is no need to have two popularly elected bodies.

It is a common consensus that a popularly elected Senate was a mistake? By whom? I've heard the exact opposite whenever I've heard scholars talking about it.

An appointed upper chamber occurs in the British Parliamentary system and it's a joke.

Right now there are 25 attourny generals sueing the federal government to get out from under the heavy thumb of Obamacare. Do you think that Obamacare would be possible if the Senate was appointed by those same states? And please show me where the constitution mentions race or gender in regards to voting.

 

[Sheldon]

It's always seemed counter-intuitive why three-fourths of the state legislatures would support an amendment that removed their power to choose the Senators.

I can understand why the founders wanted the Senate to be insulated from the general population. But at the same time that system allowed even more bureaucratic back-scratching, and I like being able to have a direct say in my Senators... so I have to say no.

The argument that it allowed states a greater say on federal appropriations is a good one though. Without the 17th we may not have the "legal age at 21 or no highway funds" crap going on now, for an example.

 

[Publius1787]

Yes. They beleived that if you allowed non freeholdres the vote they would corrupt the constitution, the polititions, and the law, with people that wanted to gain power through taking freedoms and wealth away from one group of citizens and giving it to another (The modern Democrat Party). James Madison makes this clear in his notes on the federal convention. They by no means wanted the people who pay no taxes to determin what government services should be provided and paid for by those who do.

No Representation without taxation. It's a good policy. People who have no stake in the government don't care what happens.

Everyone pays taxes.

Not everyone pays more in taxes than they receive in direct welfare. Which means they not only pay no taxes but they get money back. Yet they have the right to vote for more and at whose expense? A Conflict of interest?

 

[Publius1787]

With the possible exception of prohibition, the 17th is the worst amendment set upon The People of this country. Well, at least they took the time to amend the Constitution, something our dear leaders these days don't even bother with.

I was never partial to the 16th Amendment either.

 

[Publius1787]

It's always seemed counter-intuitive why three-fourths of the state legislatures would support an amendment that removed their power to choose the Senators.

I can understand why the founders wanted the Senate to be insulated from the general population. But at the same time that system allowed even more bureaucratic back-scratching, and I like being able to have a direct say in my Senators... so I have to say no.

The argument that it allowed states a greater say on federal appropriations is a good one though. Without the 17th we may not have the "legal age at 21 or no highway funds" crap going on now, for an example.

Then why have a house and a senate? Sence their both elected by the people what is the difference between them? Election terms? Constitutional duties? That can easily be remedied by one body. Instead you have states forced to pass laws that may be determined not in their interest in order to get the money back from the federal government that was taken from the people in the state. Its extortion, its criminal, its not democracy, and voids the 10th Amendment. If you vote is forced on anything other than principle then you cannot vote your concious, the democratic process is broken, and that is what we have in the state legeslatures today.

 

[Toro]

The states have the right to make laws on campaign finance and corruption in any manner they please. Failure to do so by one should not be the damnation of all of the states. It is a common concensus that popularly elected senators was a huge mistake. You could either have a house that represents the people and a Senate that represents the states or two bodies that represent only the people without regard to the states. Checks and balances are much better placed in the former. There is no need to have two popularly elected bodies.

It is a common consensus that a popularly elected Senate was a mistake? By whom? I've heard the exact opposite whenever I've heard scholars talking about it.

An appointed upper chamber occurs in the British Parliamentary system and it's a joke.

Right now there are 25 attourny generals sueing the federal government to get out from under the heavy thumb of Obamacare. Do you think that Obamacare would be possible if the Senate was appointed by those same states? And please show me where the constitution mentions race or gender in regards to voting.

Like I said, this isn't the 18th century anymore.

 

[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".

And you'd use FUCKInG GUbZmint if you appointed Senators. FFS we appoint Senators in Canada and it's a disaster. True, the system is different, but the idea that those appointed wouldn't be cronies who've donated a ton of money to the politicians is hilarious. I love how ambassadors are selected in this country BTW. Write big cheques and you can live in a comfy residence in Dublin on the taxpayers dime. As if it would be any different in the Senate.

The system is different, but somehow or another we'd end up with the same results?