Tea Partiers want to repeal the 17th amendment

[Oddball]

I don't know about you, but I personally like the idea that *I* can help vote the bastard out.

*You* can vote for the bastard who recalls the bastard, at the state level.

That's another great thing about appointed Senators; even though their terms are six years, they could be recalled and replaced at will by the state legislatures.

That's false.

There is nothing that changes the way Senators are removed - unless you write that into the repeal language.

Which will never happen.

That's not false at all.

Until the 17th Amendment, Senators served at the pleasure of the state houses....If they became creatures of the District of Criminals, the state legislatures could recall and replace them.

 

[LuckyDan]

I don't know about you, but I personally like the idea that *I* can help vote the bastard out.

*You* can vote for the bastard who recalls the bastard, at the state level.

That's another great thing about appointed Senators; even though their terms are six years, they could be recalled and replaced at will by the state legislatures.

That's false.

There is nothing that changes the way Senators are removed - unless you write that into the repeal language.

Which will never happen.

Repeal would reinstate Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Each state legislature could determine the manner in which their US Senators are chosen and removed. Think of it as empowerment. Or even choice.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Nope...........I don't want a state legislature to be lobbied by corporations so that they can put Senators in place to do their bidding.

BP anyone?

 

[LuckyDan]

Nope...........I don't want a state legislature to be lobbied by corporations so that they can put Senators in place to do their bidding.

BP anyone?

I'd rather they were lobbying states than individual Senators. They'd have 50 lobbies to crowd instead of just one.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If they lobby the state, then they can get even more entrenched in screwing things up than ever before.

I mean.......it's readily apparent which senators are in the pockets of big oil. Just look at the Gulf fiasco.

 

[LuckyDan]

If they lobby the state, then they can get even more entrenched in screwing things up than ever before.

I mean.......it's readily apparent which senators are in the pockets of big oil. Just look at the Gulf fiasco.

Actually I'm still waiting for a good look at the Gulf fiasco, but that's another thread.

Corruption will be with us, no matter what. I like the idea of re-empowering the individual states more than anything else.

 

[Foxfyre]

*You* can vote for the bastard who recalls the bastard, at the state level.

That's another great thing about appointed Senators; even though their terms are six years, they could be recalled and replaced at will by the state legislatures.

That's false.

There is nothing that changes the way Senators are removed - unless you write that into the repeal language.

Which will never happen.

Repeal would reinstate Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Each state legislature could determine the manner in which their US Senators are chosen and removed. Think of it as empowerment. Or even choice.

This is correct. That system worked pretty well until the hostilities between the states began to escalate in the mid 19th Century resulting in some states not sending senators plus there was the age old problem of graft and bribery buying and selling those senate seats.

There's a pretty good history here:
U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Institutional Development > Direct Election of Senators

I wish the states would be the ones to set the salaries and pension plans, if any, for their own congressional representatives. There's probably a problem with that I've overlooked, but I have a problem with our elected leaders being able to vote themselves lifetime wealth making millionaires at our expense of almost all who serve in Congress for any time.

 

[American Horse]

No it is not. Giving other people the right to vote on what you should be able to do with your freedom is crazy. Don't get me wrong. I like plenty of my fellow citizens but I can't imagine giving them the power to vote away what I can do with my life. Most rights in this country were violated because of democracy and it was the undemocratic constitution that nullified their vote. I personally thank God we don't have some kind of unlimited democracy where we can do that.

How is allowing people to vote for their Senator "giving them the power to vote away what I can do with my life."

Such loopiness.

I was referring to those who believe in democracy as some kind of protection against the loss of liberty. Some people seem to think that democracy fixes everything but it doesn't and never has. The best example is all the laws that were struck down that violated someone's rights in this country. Those were not designed by some king but by the legislatures we have in place which are all democratic bodies.

Now if democracy actually could protect people's freedom then how did all the unconstitutional, liberty violating laws that were struck down get passed by a democratic body? It clearly does not work for protecting our freedom which is why directly picking senators doesn't change anything.

I hope you will provide a few examples of these laws for clarification?

 

[American Horse]

I've been an advocate of repealing The 17th for the past 5 years...glad to see the baggers are finally jumping on ship with it.

This is just one TEA PARTY proposal, and not the primary one. It's being given attention as if it were because it denotes "states rights." That is a well known bug-a-boo of the left to discredit those who support it as being knaves.

Oscar, the Tea Party Core values are Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. The "secondary agenda items" are continually in flux, rising to the top and then being replaced. That may be because this is not an organization in the ordinary sense, but reflects the dynamics of the views of the members as they propose new items of common personal concern. They get reflected on in the context of current events and flux of new members which means both are constantly changing. The Tea Party movement is more like a "committee" of a huge neighborhood-association than any kind of business organization like labor unions we are so used to.

As to the disparaging useage of the term Tea Baggers and "baggers," I'd rather be a bagg-er than a bagg-ee, but neither appeal to me.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've been an advocate of repealing The 17th for the past 5 years...glad to see the baggers are finally jumping on ship with it.

This is just one TEA PARTY proposal, and not the primary one. It's being given attention as if it were because it denotes "states rights." That is a well known bug-a-boo of the left to discredit those who support it as being knaves.

Oscar, the Tea Party Core values are Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. The "secondary agenda items" are continually in flux, rising to the top and then being replaced. That may be because this is not an organization in the ordinary sense, but reflects the dynamics of the views of the members as they propose new items of common personal concern. They get reflected on in the context of current events and flux of new members which means both are constantly changing. The Tea Party movement is more like a "committee" of a huge neighborhood-association than any kind of business organization like labor unions we are so used to.

As to the disparaging useage of the term Tea Baggers and "baggers," I'd rather be a bagg-er than a bagg-ee

You're right. To re-emphasize, the core emphasis of the Tea Party movement is as you said: Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets.

Side issues surface from time to time as suggestions of ways those core principles can be addressed, and then some.....especially those who are terrified of and want to destroy the Tea Party movement.......do their damndest to get us bogged down in the side issues that are waaaaaaaaay down on the list of priorities.

If the Tea Party spirit is infused into our state and federal leadership, all those side issues can then be addressed, researched, debated, and decided within a framework that gives us the best shot at arriving at the best possible decisions.

 

[American Horse]

I've been an advocate of repealing The 17th for the past 5 years...glad to see the baggers are finally jumping on ship with it.

This is just one TEA PARTY proposal, and not the primary one. It's being given attention as if it were because it denotes "states rights." That is a well known bug-a-boo of the left to discredit those who support it as being knaves.

Oscar, the Tea Party Core values are Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. The "secondary agenda items" are continually in flux, rising to the top and then being replaced. That may be because this is not an organization in the ordinary sense, but reflects the dynamics of the views of the members as they propose new items of common personal concern. They get reflected on in the context of current events and flux of new members which means both are constantly changing. The Tea Party movement is more like a "committee" or a huge neighborhood-association than any kind of business organization like labor unions we are so used to.

As to the disparaging useage of the term Tea Baggers and "baggers," I'd rather be a bagg-er than a bagg-ee

You're right. To re-emphasize, the core emphasis of the Tea Party movement is as you said: Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets.

Side issues surface from time to time as suggestions of ways those core principles can be addressed, and then some.....especially those who are terrified of and want to destroy the Tea Party movement.......do their damndest to get us bogged down in the side issues that are waaaaaaaaay down on the list of priorities.

If the Tea Party spirit is infused into our state and federal leadership, all those side issues can then be addressed, researched, debated, and decided within a framework that gives us the best shot at arriving at the best possible decisions.

Exactly right Fox, and that is what is being lost on the left as they attempt to almost criminalize (as some of them do with those who disagree with their master plan). I think the comparison to the huge neighborhood-association is a good one, as I experience it myself in the past. They are precursors to the TEA PARTY: Older folks, retired and able to spend time, along with housewives, people concerned about the future of their children come out en-masse to oppose “new development in their back yards," because they are made to feel insecure by it.

They have amazing power to hang in as long as there is an "issue", and they give up time to prepare and to attend public meetings and stand before the plan commission with a slew of objections and proposals to address their issues. (I experienced this with my last development, they proved to be a huge force, tenacious, and extracted pretty much what they wanted, except for not completely shutting me down - which not all even wanted to do)

 

[Foxfyre]

This is just one TEA PARTY proposal, and not the primary one. It's being given attention as if it were because it denotes "states rights." That is a well known bug-a-boo of the left to discredit those who support it as being knaves.

Oscar, the Tea Party Core values are Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets. The "secondary agenda items" are continually in flux, rising to the top and then being replaced. That may be because this is not an organization in the ordinary sense, but reflects the dynamics of the views of the members as they propose new items of common personal concern. They get reflected on in the context of current events and flux of new members which means both are constantly changing. The Tea Party movement is more like a "committee" or a huge neighborhood-association than any kind of business organization like labor unions we are so used to.

As to the disparaging useage of the term Tea Baggers and "baggers," I'd rather be a bagg-er than a bagg-ee

You're right. To re-emphasize, the core emphasis of the Tea Party movement is as you said: Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government, and Free Markets.

Side issues surface from time to time as suggestions of ways those core principles can be addressed, and then some.....especially those who are terrified of and want to destroy the Tea Party movement.......do their damndest to get us bogged down in the side issues that are waaaaaaaaay down on the list of priorities.

If the Tea Party spirit is infused into our state and federal leadership, all those side issues can then be addressed, researched, debated, and decided within a framework that gives us the best shot at arriving at the best possible decisions.

Exactly right Fox, and that is what is being lost on the left as they attempt to almost criminalize (as some of them do with those who disagree with their master plan). I think the comparison to the huge neighborhood-association is a good one, as I experience it myself in the past. Older folks, retired and able to spend time, along with housewives, people concerned about the future of their children come out en-masse to oppose “new development in their back yards," because they are made to feel insecure by it.

They have amazing power to hang in as long as there is an "issue", and they give up time to prepare and to attend public meetings and stand before the plan commission with a slew of objections and proposals to address their issues. (I experienced this with my last development, they proved tenacious, and extracted pretty much what they wanted, except for not completely shutting me down - which not all wanted to do)

But in the end, short of being shut down which few developers are , isn't it better to yield to the greater will of the people and come to compromises that all are comfortable living with? It makes for a much more pleasant and aesthetically pleasing society. I've been on both sides of such issues - petitioning for development and petitioning to stop or relocate it when I thought it was a bad thing for a community. I don't know if we got it right in every case, but usually it all works out.

I don't see how this country can go wrong, however, by reining in government abuse of power, restoring fiscal integrity, letting the free market system work and thereby reinforce our unalienable rights.

What we're doing now sure as hell isn't working.

 

[Nosmo King]

demonize demonize demonize,, demonize demonize demonize,, how did you DUmmies get so mean anyway??

Lessons learned at the feet of Karl Rove and Dick Cheney and Spiro Agnew and Phyllis Schlafly and Barry Goldwater...

 

[American Horse]

Exactly right Fox, and that is what is being lost on the left as they attempt to almost criminalize (as some of them do with those who disagree with their master plan). I think the comparison to the huge neighborhood-association is a good one, as I experience it myself in the past. Older folks, retired and able to spend time, along with housewives, people concerned about the future of their children come out en-masse to oppose “new development in their back yards," because they are made to feel insecure by it.

They have amazing power to hang in as long as there is an "issue", and they give up time to prepare and to attend public meetings and stand before the plan commission with a slew of objections and proposals to address their issues. (I experienced this with my last development, they proved tenacious, and extracted pretty much what they wanted, except for not completely shutting me down - which not all wanted to do)

But in the end, short of being shut down which few developers are , isn't it better to yield to the greater will of the people and come to compromises that all are comfortable living with? It makes for a much more pleasant and aesthetically pleasing society. I've been on both sides of such issues - petitioning for development and petitioning to stop or relocate it when I thought it was a bad thing for a community. I don't know if we got it right in every case, but usually it all works out.

I don't see how this country can go wrong, however, by reining in government abuse of power, restoring fiscal integrity, letting the free market system work and thereby reinforce our unalienable rights.

What we're doing now sure as hell isn't working.

I think the neighborhood parallel is pertinent. It's the same people demographically. They are for the most part reasonable, but tenacious, and if the "project" is stopped in its entirety it probably is good for everyone concerned. Too many developers (like politicians) are not really aware of the consequences (possibly even honest) of their proposed changes, and looking back, even after being stopped, they will consider it the best thing if they are honest.