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

[Publius1787]

I'm not attacking the founders. I'm making a point. The constitution is a historically brilliant document. The ideals embodied in the constitution may be the most noble in the world. However, do you not see the blatant philosophical contradiction in people who own slaves writing a document that says "All men are created equal?" Clearly, when the constitution was written, the founders did not believe that "all" men were equal because they were products of their time. They were enlightened men for their time. "Inalienable rights," but only if you're a white guy? If the founding fathers were alive today, do you believe they would argue slavery is OK? No, because societies evolve. That's the point. Great men cannot possibly anticipate how a society may look like 250 years into the future, no matter how great they are. We are products of our time, and can only be judged so, but that does not mean society remains rooted in the norms of centuries past.

How do you know the constitution is a brilliant document? Some one else must have told you because you obviously havent read it! And the 3/5ths clause is there EXACTLY because the founders saw that contradiction. FURTHERMORE, WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION RACE OR GENDER? Enough about this "white guy" BS!!!!!! The founders objected to slavery and thats why the constitution outlaws the slave trade (but you didnt know that) and they made it possible to abolish slavery. THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY ARE CONSTANT! UNALEINABLE RIGHTS ARE CONSTANT! THE POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN VOTE AWAY YOUR UNALENIABLE (MEANING NOT FOR EXPORT) RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

NOW COUNT THE BLACK PEOPLE AND WOMEN IN THIS PICTURE!!! I'll give you a hint. There are 2 blacks and one woman and they all are dipictions of real people WallBuilders - Newsletters - Black History Issue 2004

you do realize that oil paintings aren't the same as photographs, right?



damn

I'll let the experts explain it to you. Washington crossing the delewar is in the last munute of the video. QUICK STICKING YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND IN LIGHT OF HISTORICAL FACT!
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inoWGGeqdmo]YouTube - ‪Pt 1 Glenn Beck AMERICA'S BLACK FOUNDING FATHERS Founders' Friday‬‏[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

Give me a break. 99% of this country has sacrificed jack shit for the wars.

Like I said.

It is a substitute for an argument.
The main argument is that people with nothing in the system should not be able to vote themselves benefits paid for by those who do.
Deal with it.

Too bad you've lost that argument. Deal with it.

No, I have not. I cannot lose an argument against someone who cannot argue.

 

[Publius1787]

I'm not attacking the founders. I'm making a point. The constitution is a historically brilliant document. The ideals embodied in the constitution may be the most noble in the world. However, do you not see the blatant philosophical contradiction in people who own slaves writing a document that says "All men are created equal?" Clearly, when the constitution was written, the founders did not believe that "all" men were equal because they were products of their time. They were enlightened men for their time. "Inalienable rights," but only if you're a white guy? If the founding fathers were alive today, do you believe they would argue slavery is OK? No, because societies evolve. That's the point. Great men cannot possibly anticipate how a society may look like 250 years into the future, no matter how great they are. We are products of our time, and can only be judged so, but that does not mean society remains rooted in the norms of centuries past.

How do you know the constitution is a brilliant document? Some one else must have told you because you obviously havent read it! And the 3/5ths clause is there EXACTLY because the founders saw that contradiction. FURTHERMORE, WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION RACE OR GENDER? Enough about this "white guy" BS!!!!!! The founders objected to slavery and thats why the constitution outlaws the slave trade (but you didnt know that) and they made it possible to abolish slavery. THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY ARE CONSTANT! UNALEINABLE RIGHTS ARE CONSTANT! THE POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN VOTE AWAY YOUR UNALENIABLE (MEANING NOT FOR EXPORT) RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

NOW COUNT THE BLACK PEOPLE AND WOMEN IN THIS PICTURE!!!

Some of the founding fathers owned slaves. Some did not. Clearly not all of them believed in the inalienable rights of all men.

Which one specifically said that he did not beleive in inaleinable rights for all men? Oh there are a few who made comments along those lines. BUT WHAT ARE YOU REFERENCING YOUR FALSE PERCEPTION OF HISTORY FROM? Slavery almost destroyed the constitution in the philidelphia convention! Like most liberals you slander the founding fathers in order to advocate for sweeping seizures of individual liberty.

 

[The Rabbi]

I'm not attacking the founders. I'm making a point. The constitution is a historically brilliant document. The ideals embodied in the constitution may be the most noble in the world. However, do you not see the blatant philosophical contradiction in people who own slaves writing a document that says "All men are created equal?" Clearly, when the constitution was written, the founders did not believe that "all" men were equal because they were products of their time. They were enlightened men for their time. "Inalienable rights," but only if you're a white guy? If the founding fathers were alive today, do you believe they would argue slavery is OK? No, because societies evolve. That's the point. Great men cannot possibly anticipate how a society may look like 250 years into the future, no matter how great they are. We are products of our time, and can only be judged so, but that does not mean society remains rooted in the norms of centuries past.

How do you know the constitution is a brilliant document? Some one else must have told you because you obviously havent read it! And the 3/5ths clause is there EXACTLY because the founders saw that contradiction. FURTHERMORE, WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION RACE OR GENDER? Enough about this "white guy" BS!!!!!! The founders objected to slavery and thats why the constitution outlaws the slave trade (but you didnt know that) and they made it possible to abolish slavery. THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY ARE CONSTANT! UNALEINABLE RIGHTS ARE CONSTANT! THE POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN VOTE AWAY YOUR UNALENIABLE (MEANING NOT FOR EXPORT) RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

NOW COUNT THE BLACK PEOPLE AND WOMEN IN THIS PICTURE!!! I'll give you a hint. There are 2 blacks and one woman and they all are dipictions of real people WallBuilders - Newsletters - Black History Issue 2004

you do realize that oil paintings aren't the same as photographs, right?



damn

And you realize he wrote that the painting is based on historical fact, right?
Oh no. That would require you to read and understand something, obviously beyond you. So go ahead and just insult me and we'll move on.

 

[Publius1787]

I understand that some of y'all pine for the 18th century when apparently the apex of all human enlightenment occurred, but the meaning of a document originally written by slaveowners extolling the rights of man is going to change over time as society evolves.

So you admit that you know absolutly nothing about this countries history or the constitution and your attack on the founders was unfounded and an attempt to deminish the principles of liberty in order to advocate for the taking of individual liberty for the benefit of the "collective." Thanks for clearing that up. I am happy to be the one to take you to school on this issue! No doubt you will never make the same slanderous and false accusation again!

try reading what's actually been written

You can try too. Where in the constitution does it mention race or sex in regards to voting?

 

[Publius1787]

How do you know the constitution is a brilliant document? Some one else must have told you because you obviously havent read it! And the 3/5ths clause is there EXACTLY because the founders saw that contradiction. FURTHERMORE, WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION RACE OR GENDER? Enough about this "white guy" BS!!!!!! The founders objected to slavery and thats why the constitution outlaws the slave trade (but you didnt know that) and they made it possible to abolish slavery. THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY ARE CONSTANT! UNALEINABLE RIGHTS ARE CONSTANT! THE POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN VOTE AWAY YOUR UNALENIABLE (MEANING NOT FOR EXPORT) RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

NOW COUNT THE BLACK PEOPLE AND WOMEN IN THIS PICTURE!!! I'll give you a hint. There are 2 blacks and one woman and they all are dipictions of real people WallBuilders - Newsletters - Black History Issue 2004

you do realize that oil paintings aren't the same as photographs, right?



damn

And you realize he wrote that the painting is based on historical fact, right?
Oh no. That would require you to read and understand something, obviously beyond you. So go ahead and just insult me and we'll move on.

They know theyre playing ignorant and getting whiped sorely. They should read my John Adams quote at the bottom of all my posts. I only got a BA in history but let them try to their dismay.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How do you know the constitution is a brilliant document? Some one else must have told you because you obviously havent read it! And the 3/5ths clause is there EXACTLY because the founders saw that contradiction. FURTHERMORE, WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION RACE OR GENDER? Enough about this "white guy" BS!!!!!! The founders objected to slavery and thats why the constitution outlaws the slave trade (but you didnt know that) and they made it possible to abolish slavery. THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY ARE CONSTANT! UNALEINABLE RIGHTS ARE CONSTANT! THE POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN VOTE AWAY YOUR UNALENIABLE (MEANING NOT FOR EXPORT) RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

NOW COUNT THE BLACK PEOPLE AND WOMEN IN THIS PICTURE!!!

Some of the founding fathers owned slaves. Some did not. Clearly not all of them believed in the inalienable rights of all men.

Which one specifically said that he did not beleive in inaleinable rights for all men? Oh there are a few who made comments along those lines. BUT WHAT ARE YOU REFERENCING YOUR FALSE PERCEPTION OF HISTORY FROM? Slavery almost destroyed the constitution in the philidelphia convention! Like most liberals you slander the founding fathers in order to advocate for sweeping seizures of individual liberty.

Wait a minute. Pointing out that the founders OWNED SLAVES is slander, for the purpose of taking away individual liberties?

Do you write for the Onion?

 

[del]

How do you know the constitution is a brilliant document? Some one else must have told you because you obviously havent read it! And the 3/5ths clause is there EXACTLY because the founders saw that contradiction. FURTHERMORE, WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION RACE OR GENDER? Enough about this "white guy" BS!!!!!! The founders objected to slavery and thats why the constitution outlaws the slave trade (but you didnt know that) and they made it possible to abolish slavery. THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY ARE CONSTANT! UNALEINABLE RIGHTS ARE CONSTANT! THE POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN VOTE AWAY YOUR UNALENIABLE (MEANING NOT FOR EXPORT) RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

NOW COUNT THE BLACK PEOPLE AND WOMEN IN THIS PICTURE!!! I'll give you a hint. There are 2 blacks and one woman and they all are dipictions of real people WallBuilders - Newsletters - Black History Issue 2004

you do realize that oil paintings aren't the same as photographs, right?



damn

And you realize he wrote that the painting is based on historical fact, right?
Oh no. That would require you to read and understand something, obviously beyond you. So go ahead and just insult me and we'll move on.

the historical fact it's based on is that washington did actually cross the delaware.

you people are really incredible.

i'm not sure which is funnier-thinking an oil painting is evidence that blacks and women crossed the delaware with washington or the notion that glenn beck is an *expert* on anything.

you rock!

 

[Toro]

How do you know the constitution is a brilliant document? Some one else must have told you because you obviously havent read it! And the 3/5ths clause is there EXACTLY because the founders saw that contradiction. FURTHERMORE, WHERE DOES THE CONSTITUTION MENTION RACE OR GENDER? Enough about this "white guy" BS!!!!!! The founders objected to slavery and thats why the constitution outlaws the slave trade (but you didnt know that) and they made it possible to abolish slavery. THE PRINCIPLES OF LIBERTY ARE CONSTANT! UNALEINABLE RIGHTS ARE CONSTANT! THE POINT IS THAT NO ONE CAN VOTE AWAY YOUR UNALENIABLE (MEANING NOT FOR EXPORT) RIGHTS!!!!!!!!

NOW COUNT THE BLACK PEOPLE AND WOMEN IN THIS PICTURE!!!

Some of the founding fathers owned slaves. Some did not. Clearly not all of them believed in the inalienable rights of all men.

Which one specifically said that he did not beleive in inaleinable rights for all men? Oh there are a few who made comments along those lines. BUT WHAT ARE YOU REFERENCING YOUR FALSE PERCEPTION OF HISTORY FROM? Slavery almost destroyed the constitution in the philidelphia convention! Like most liberals you slander the founding fathers in order to advocate for sweeping seizures of individual liberty.

I'm not slandering the founding fathers. I'm praising them. I'm refuting your interpretation of the historical context in which the constitution was written. There were at least a dozen founding fathers who owned slaves. Clearly, when you legally own human beings, you do not see them equal to yourself.

 

[del]

you do realize that oil paintings aren't the same as photographs, right?



damn

And you realize he wrote that the painting is based on historical fact, right?
Oh no. That would require you to read and understand something, obviously beyond you. So go ahead and just insult me and we'll move on.

They know theyre playing ignorant and getting whiped sorely. They should read my John Adams quote at the bottom of all my posts. I only got a BA in history but let them try to their dismay.

i didn't realize closecoverbeforestriking u. granted a ba in history.

congratulations

 

[FuelRod]

I think State Legislatures are filled with bigger idiots than Congress.

 

[rightwinger]

Does anyone actually believe that American citizens want to give up their right to directly elect Senators?

1. Voting is not a right. Its a privilage. The constitution gives no one the right to vote. It only specifies the conditions that they cannot be denied the right to vote.
2. 2/3rds of the people who voted in this poll see the value of the states having a say in the federal government as intended by the founding fathers. They also see no need for two popularly elected bodies. So yes, evidently there are some that want to protect their rights through state representation.

1. Voting is a right

2. In no way do the right wing Tea Baggers who vote in internet polls represent the American People

There is no way the American public would give up their right to elect their Senators directly. Using backroom politics and graft to select peoples Senators would not be tolerated. The founding fathers also denied the vote to non-landholders, women, blacks and Native Americans

Want to try to take that one back too

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you admit that you know absolutly nothing about this countries history or the constitution and your attack on the founders was unfounded and an attempt to deminish the principles of liberty in order to advocate for the taking of individual liberty for the benefit of the "collective." Thanks for clearing that up. I am happy to be the one to take you to school on this issue! No doubt you will never make the same slanderous and false accusation again!

try reading what's actually been written

You can try too. Where in the constitution does it mention race or sex in regards to voting?

The 19th amendment, schoolboy.

Section 2 of the 14th amendment protects black males right to vote in federal elections.

 

[Toro]

Does anyone actually believe that American citizens want to give up their right to directly elect Senators?

1. Voting is not a right. Its a privilage. The constitution gives no one the right to vote. It only specifies the conditions that they cannot be denied the right to vote.
2. 2/3rds of the people who voted in this poll see the value of the states having a say in the federal government as intended by the founding fathers. They also see no need for two popularly elected bodies. So yes, evidently there are some that want to protect their rights through state representation.

1. Voting is a right

2. In no way do the right wing Tea Baggers who vote in internet polls represent the American People

There is no way the American public would give up their right to elect their Senators directly. Using backroom politics and graft to select peoples Senators would not be tolerated. The founding fathers also denied the vote to non-landholders, women, blacks and Native Americans

Want to try to take that one back too

Wait, didn't you see the painting?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[1. Voting is not a right. Its a privilage. The constitution gives no one the right to vote. It only specifies the conditions that they cannot be denied the right to vote.

Do you realize that your 3rd sentence above completely refutes your second one?

lol

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.
YouTube - ‪Thomas DiLorenzo - The 17th Amendment‬‏

So which states would currently have a different Senate delegation (by party) had the legislatures elected the Senators, and assuming they generally voted along party lines?

 

[del]

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.
YouTube - ‪Thomas DiLorenzo - The 17th Amendment‬‏

So which states would currently have a different Senate delegation (by party) had the legislatures elected the Senators, and assuming they generally voted along party lines?

scott brown wouldn't have gotten into the senate except on a tour

 

[del]

1. Voting is not a right. Its a privilage. The constitution gives no one the right to vote. It only specifies the conditions that they cannot be denied the right to vote.
2. 2/3rds of the people who voted in this poll see the value of the states having a say in the federal government as intended by the founding fathers. They also see no need for two popularly elected bodies. So yes, evidently there are some that want to protect their rights through state representation.

1. Voting is a right

2. In no way do the right wing Tea Baggers who vote in internet polls represent the American People

There is no way the American public would give up their right to elect their Senators directly. Using backroom politics and graft to select peoples Senators would not be tolerated. The founding fathers also denied the vote to non-landholders, women, blacks and Native Americans

Want to try to take that one back too

Wait, didn't you see the painting?

i found this picture of napoleon crossing the snake river, but the racist bastard didn't bring any black people with him. grrrrr

i guess the french have always sucked, the cheese eating surrender monkeys

 

[Publius1787]

Some of the founding fathers owned slaves. Some did not. Clearly not all of them believed in the inalienable rights of all men.

Which one specifically said that he did not beleive in inaleinable rights for all men? Oh there are a few who made comments along those lines. BUT WHAT ARE YOU REFERENCING YOUR FALSE PERCEPTION OF HISTORY FROM? Slavery almost destroyed the constitution in the philidelphia convention! Like most liberals you slander the founding fathers in order to advocate for sweeping seizures of individual liberty.

Wait a minute. Pointing out that the founders OWNED SLAVES is slander, for the purpose of taking away individual liberties?

Do you write for the Onion?

Conservative argument: Knowing the foundations of individual liberty and the best way to protect freedom the founders implemented (insert policy here)

Liberal arguement: SSSSSSSSSSSLLLLLLLLLLLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY. We should dismiss the selfish principles of individual liberty because it hurts the needs of the collective. After all. The founders were just a bunch of racist and sexist bigots who beleived freedom was only for the white man.

 

[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.
YouTube - ‪Thomas DiLorenzo - The 17th Amendment‬‏

So which states would currently have a different Senate delegation (by party) had the legislatures elected the Senators, and assuming they generally voted along party lines?

Thats neither here nor there. The senators vote on the states interests. Theres alot that the whim of the masses would advocate for that unwhittingly hurts them if applied to their states. Particularly Obamacare which is being contested by 25 states. Or perhaps when the federal government bribes state legislators with money from their own states to implement policies that the federal government cannot constitutionaly require the states to do.