Tea Partiers want to repeal the 17th amendment

[Queen]

That's the strangest thing about Fabian socialist elitist snots....They're really, really so haughty to think that they can tell everyone else what's in their best interests.

So it's haughty to think that protecting your right to vote is in your best interest?

If so, OK, call me haughty.

You're haughty....And arrogant...And ignorant...All rolled into one.

Happy now?

OK, if that describes a patriotic American who wants to keep her right to vote, fine.

Thanks!

 

[my2¢]

I don't buy the argument that the repeal will enhance states' rights in any way but symbolic, still I wouldn't lose any sleep over the change. I did a quick search on the history of the amendment and came across this:

After the Civil War, problems in senatorial elections by the state legislatures multiplied. In one case in the late 1860s, the election of Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton based his defense on the observation that not all states elected their senators in the same way, and presented a report that illustrated the inconsistency in state elections of senators. In response, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when senators were elected in each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections created by the Founders. The law helped but did not entirely solve the problem, and deadlocks in some legislatures continued to cause long vacancies in some Senate seats.

Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, forty-five deadlocks occurred in twenty states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899, problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Institutional Development > Direct Election of Senators

 

[Oddball]

So it's haughty to think that protecting your right to vote is in your best interest?

If so, OK, call me haughty.

You're haughty....And arrogant...And ignorant...All rolled into one.

Happy now?

OK, if that describes a patriotic American who wants to keep her right to vote, fine.

Thanks!

It describes an ignoramus with no insight on dual sovereignty and how & why the various branches of federal apparatus were set up to operate.

That's OK...I run into it every day.

 

[Father Time]

I find this so amazing that you people have such a difficulty understanding this:

We aren't supposed to have the power to elect Senators. It was designed for the States do this. And it was designed for a very good reason. We are supposed to have influence through the House.

The Seventeenth Amendment was one of the critical reforms of the Progressive Era, along with enfranchising women; empowering voters with the direct primary election, initiative, referendum and recall, and establishing antitrust laws.

EDITORIAL: Repeal 17th Amendment? You've gotta be kidding

Yeah, it was a progressive program. Which has completely screwed up this nation.

In fact, the only progressive amendment I don't have a problem with is the one allowing women to vote, since it was long overdue.

Do you consider the one repealing alcohol to be progressive (I ask because seemingly no one is able to agree on it)?

 

[AllieBaba]

lol, like it's not like that now...

No, it's not like that now. We vote for our Senators now.

They aren't appointed. They campaign and run for office and we go to the polls and vote for them.

Seems to me there was just recently a bit of a scandal involving Obama and his previous Senate seat...

 

[Father Time]

That's the strangest thing about Fabian socialist elitist snots....They're really, really so haughty to think that they can tell everyone else what's in their best interests.

So it's haughty to think that protecting your right to vote is in your best interest?

If so, OK, call me haughty.

Your still going to be able to vote. You will still influence the Federal government through the House like you are supposed to.

Let's get one thing straight the Constitution was written with an amendment system to change it. We change it with the 17th amendment and we're supposed to do what our Constitution says.

If you don't like it fine but don't pretend we are breaking some rule by adding an amendment.

 

[EriktheRed]

Because Progressives played on their emotions and they had limited understanding of why it was set up the way it was. Since then the Government has grown out of control and corruption is even worse now than ever.

Experiment failed. Let's return to the original plan.

Yes, of course....


People are only thinking for themselves when they go along with conservative views.


Btw, this idea that "corruption is even worse now than ever" seems pretty subjective. Any actual data to compare now with then?

Alright, answer me these questions:

When did the Federal Government ever run a deficit over trillions of dollars before the Senate was taken from the States?

When were earmarks a problem before the Senate was taken from the States?

When people are directly elected, lobbyists have more power to influence them because the politicians need money to run their campaigns. When the Senate is chosen by the people, the lobbyists can't directly contribute Senators campaigns. In order to buy a Senator, they would have to influence all the States officials to appoint said Senator.

Their influence is weakend. You guys are the ones always complaining about the lobbyists. Restore the Senate, and you will dilute their power significantly.

Sure, the deficit and earmarks are problems. I still don't see, however, how corruption would necessarily be less. Senators would still be open to bribery and it's not like state representatives are all angels. An extra buffer between the Senators and special interests concerning their election/appointment doesn't mean there still wouldn't be corruption. Hell, corruption is what spawned the push for the amendment in the first place. You can say "Progressives played on their emotions" all you want, but this didn't happen in a vacuum.

 

[Queen]

You're haughty....And arrogant...And ignorant...All rolled into one.

Happy now?

OK, if that describes a patriotic American who wants to keep her right to vote, fine.

Thanks!

It describes an ignoramus with no insight on dual sovereignty and how & why the various branches of federal apparatus were set up to operate.

That's OK...I run into it every day.

When you look in the mirror!

You're just making a fool of yourself by choosing to discuss me instead of the issue. It makes it look like you don't understand the issue and are too stupid to learn about it so you'd rather just play 2nd grade and mock.

Just sayin'.

 

[Queen]

lol, like it's not like that now...

No, it's not like that now. We vote for our Senators now.

They aren't appointed. They campaign and run for office and we go to the polls and vote for them.

Seems to me there was just recently a bit of a scandal involving Obama and his previous Senate seat...

It seems the tea partiers would be in support of Blago! He wanted to do what was common practice before the 17th amendment. Sell the seat to the highest bidder!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The state is it's people. The legislature is the representation of the people as elected by the people.

But......think about this.........with SCOTUS saying that corporations have the same rights as people and that they can contribute as much as they want, with the repeal of the 17th, corporations would have a very easy way to control the government.

I hear this so often from people who don't understand the meaning of those decisions that I know it is a waste of time to try to educate anyone. Let me ask you something instead, just how much control of state legislatures do these evil corporations have? Did you even know that many states do not limit campaign donations from corporations? Take a look at California, which allows corporations to donate as much as they want to any candidate. Which corporation runs California again? Unless you count SEIU as a corporation that is.

 

[Oddball]

OK, if that describes a patriotic American who wants to keep her right to vote, fine.

Thanks!

It describes an ignoramus with no insight on dual sovereignty and how & why the various branches of federal apparatus were set up to operate.

That's OK...I run into it every day.

When you look in the mirror!

You're just making a fool of yourself by choosing to discuss me instead of the issue. It makes it look like you don't understand the issue and are too stupid to learn about it so you'd rather just play 2nd grade and mock.

Just sayin'.

I understand the issue just fine.

I also recognize when I've run into committed ignoramuses, who have no historical basis underpinning the issue which they are discussing with such brazen ignorance.

Just sayin'.

 

[momonkey]

Sorry, but the Tea Partiers really are crazy. They want to take away our right to vote for our Senators!

Why Repeal 17th Amendment?

They want our Senators to be appointed. Back room deals. Corruption. Great idea.

So several Republican candidates who are trying to get the Tea Party vote had had to walk back from supporting this stupid idea.

Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble | TPMDC

Here's a little history about how the 17th amendment came about.

The amendment says voters get to decide who represents them in the Senate. Before its ratification in 1913, legislatures elected senators.

As you can imagine, the old system reeked of dealmaking, bribery and corruption.

The poster boy for reform was Montana’s William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him. So egregious was the scheme that the Senate refused to seat him.

Here’s what Mark Twain had to say about Clark:

“He is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not know that his proper place was the penitentiary, with a ball and chain on his legs.”

EDITORIAL: Repeal 17th Amendment? You've gotta be kidding

And Mark Twain's words pertain to the Tea Party Republican candidates of today, in my opinion.

Is any group you disagree with a Tea Party organization?

This one advertises itself as a state's rights group.

States' Liberty Party

I didn't see the words Tea Party used anywhere on their home page.


The other group of "Tea Party" participants are billed as the Union County and Galloway 912 Project.


You think the process would be less corrupted by money and special interests groups if left as is?

I can't imagine it being more corrupt.


Madison was a nut?

Section 3.
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.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

 

[jillian]

I hear this so often from people who don't understand the meaning of those decisions that I know it is a waste of time to try to educate anyone. Let me ask you something instead, just how much control of state legislatures do these evil corporations have? Did you even know that many states do not limit campaign donations from corporations? Take a look at California, which allows corporations to donate as much as they want to any candidate. Which corporation runs California again? Unless you count SEIU as a corporation that is.

why do you think others "don't understand the meaning of those decisions" and what special insight do you think you have that others don't?

 

[HUGGY]

That's the strangest thing about Fabian socialist elitist snots....They're really, really so haughty to think that they can tell everyone else what's in their best interests.

So it's haughty to think that protecting your right to vote is in your best interest?

If so, OK, call me haughty.

You're haughty....And arrogant...And ignorant...All rolled into one.

Happy now?

Your true colors are shining through.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How do you feel about appointing judges?

Are judges politicians?

This is a strawman. Stick to the topic.

But that's my point.

If we elected SC Justices they would be political beings (not that many aren't now). If appointment would make Senators less interested in being re-elected till they die, they might be the more deliberative, less political body they were originally meant to be.

I kinda like the idea, now that I think of it.

 

[AllieBaba]

Yeah, he's honest. Scary, I know.

 

[Avatar4321]

Let's get one thing straight the Constitution was written with an amendment system to change it. We change it with the 17th amendment and we're supposed to do what our Constitution says.

If you don't like it fine but don't pretend we are breaking some rule by adding an amendment.

Who said you were breaking a rule by passing an amendment.

I'm arguing that the amendment should be repealed and the Checks and Balances the Founders envisioned should be restored.

We will not lose our say in the Federal Government because our say has always been heard in the House. But if we don't restore the check of the States, we will end up with a totalitarian system.

 

[Queen]

Let's get one thing straight the Constitution was written with an amendment system to change it. We change it with the 17th amendment and we're supposed to do what our Constitution says.

If you don't like it fine but don't pretend we are breaking some rule by adding an amendment.

Who said you were breaking a rule by passing an amendment.

I'm arguing that the amendment should be repealed and the Checks and Balances the Founders envisioned should be restored.

We will not lose our say in the Federal Government because our say has always been heard in the House. But if we don't restore the check of the States, we will end up with a totalitarian system.

It didn't work.

That's why they changed it so the people could vote for their Senators.

Giving up your vote is nuts.

 

[Avatar4321]

It didn't work.

That's why they changed it so the people could vote for their Senators.

Giving up your vote is nuts.

Vote doesn't mean jack if we remove the checks on the people in power over us.

 

[Father Time]

Let's get one thing straight the Constitution was written with an amendment system to change it. We change it with the 17th amendment and we're supposed to do what our Constitution says.

If you don't like it fine but don't pretend we are breaking some rule by adding an amendment.

Who said you were breaking a rule by passing an amendment.

I thought that's what you were implying by saying we were supposed to do things the old way.

If I read that wrong, I apologize.