Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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
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
As though the intelligence of federal Senators elected by the same people would be any higher?Seriously guys? 18 of you want Senators to be nothing more than spoils of war for the ruling legislative party? Have you seen what the state legislatures have done to the state budgets in the past decade?
I would doubt the average intelligence of a state legislator is higher than the average intelligence of a voter.
As though the intelligence of federal Senators elected by the same people would be any higher?Seriously guys? 18 of you want Senators to be nothing more than spoils of war for the ruling legislative party? Have you seen what the state legislatures have done to the state budgets in the past decade?
I would doubt the average intelligence of a state legislator is higher than the average intelligence of a voter.
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
If voting was an unaleinable natural right then everyone in the world would have the right to vote in american elections by no other virtue other than being on american soil. If voting was a right please show me where in the constitution is this right guarenteed to everyone. If voting is a right then states could not forbid felons from voting.
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
If voting was an unaleinable natural right then everyone in the world would have the right to vote in american elections by no other virtue other than being on american soil. If voting was a right please show me where in the constitution is this right guarenteed to everyone. If voting is a right then states could not forbid felons from voting.
If life were an inalienable right, we wouldn't have the death penalty.
The Founders were wiser men than the progressives. Nuff said.
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
If voting was an unaleinable natural right then everyone in the world would have the right to vote in american elections by no other virtue other than being on american soil. If voting was a right please show me where in the constitution is this right guarenteed to everyone. If voting is a right then states could not forbid felons from voting.
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
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. Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
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. straw man - wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
may i also point out that putting the make-up of the senate back in the hands of the state legislatures would also have the effect of forcing the voters - apathetic creatures that they naturally are - to start paying more attention to who ends up in their state legislature and why. Making people more informed and more involved (and i don't mean "involved" in the leftist sense of "pulling the lever for the guy who promises the most goodies") is usually a good thing.
If voting was an unaleinable natural right then everyone in the world would have the right to vote in american elections by no other virtue other than being on american soil. If voting was a right please show me where in the constitution is this right guarenteed to everyone. If voting is a right then states could not forbid felons from voting.
If life were an inalienable right, we wouldn't have the death penalty.
Fucking DUE PROCESS
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. Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
May I also point out that putting the make-up of the Senate back in the hands of the state legislatures would ALSO have the effect of forcing the voters - apathetic creatures that they naturally are - to start paying more attention to who ends up in their state legislature and why. Making people more informed and more involved (and I don't mean "involved" in the leftist sense of "pulling the lever for the guy who promises the most goodies") is usually a good thing.
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
If voting was an unaleinable natural right then everyone in the world would have the right to vote in american elections by no other virtue other than being on american soil. If voting was a right please show me where in the constitution is this right guarenteed to everyone. If voting is a right then states could not forbid felons from voting.
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870. History
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Says nothing about privledge
The system is different, but somehow or another we'd end up with the same results?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.
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
If voting was an unaleinable natural right then everyone in the world would have the right to vote in american elections by no other virtue other than being on american soil. If voting was a right please show me where in the constitution is this right guarenteed to everyone. If voting is a right then states could not forbid felons from voting.
If life were an inalienable right, we wouldn't have the death penalty.
If voting was an unaleinable natural right then everyone in the world would have the right to vote in american elections by no other virtue other than being on american soil. If voting was a right please show me where in the constitution is this right guarenteed to everyone. If voting is a right then states could not forbid felons from voting.
Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 8/18/1920. History
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Says nothing about privledge
It says that voting cannot be denied ON ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that the states can deny voting privilages but not for that purpose. Are you really this stupid?
Says nothing about privledge
It says that voting cannot be denied ON ACCOUNT OF (fill in the blank). Which means that the states can deny voting privilages but not for that purpose. Are you really this stupid?
once again, this reading thing will work much better if you just stick to the words that actually appear on the page.
do you have an oil painting of the constitution which refers to voting as a privilege?
Nobody asked whether it was politically feasible. It probably isn't. Any more than property qualifications, which I also support.
And I reckon you support slavery and the 3/5ths provision, also.
Talk about a red herring. Is your ability to argue the point that pathetic?
