Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[RKMBrown]

I think there are a lot of misconceptions on the Senate and the 17th being speculated here in this thread.

That an ostensibly populist movement like the tea party would so openly disdain a populist constitutional amendment is itself a noteworthy contradiction. But the repeal idea also reflects a common misconception of the Senate as a representative of the states as well as a misunderstanding of the true reason for the 17th Amendment's existence.

The legislative appointment of senators that preceded the 17th Amendment was not uniformly or even primarily viewed as a means of protecting states' rights in the national government. First, as framers such as James Madison pointed out at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was the undue solicitude of state legislatures to popular will that precipitated the effort to form the national government. The appointment of senators by these same legislatures would likewise reflect the sovereignty of the people, not abstract states' rights.

Indeed, even under legislative appointment, many state legislatures routinely held popular primaries or conducted polls to determine whom to appoint to the Senate. And once appointed, senators voted individually rather than on a per state basis, and there was no mechanism to recall a senator who cast a vote with which his state legislature disagreed.

All of these incidents of the legislative appointment of senators underscore what Alexander Hamilton said of the notion of states' rights being represented by the Senate: "As states are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition[?]"

By the time the 61st and 62nd Congresses took up debate on ratification of the 17th Amendment, the notion of states' rights had been revivified by the Civil War and the Reconstruction-era intervention of the federal government in the affairs of the South. However, a significant if not preponderant share of the debate focused not on the merits of directly electing senators or on the abstract notion of the Senate representing states' rights, but rather on the attempt by Southern Democrats to repeal the 15th Amendment, which gives blacks the right to vote. Not atypical of the debates concerning direct elections is the sentiment of Sen. Davis of Georgia, who lamented that the 15th Amendment had given to "the ignorant, vicious, half barbaric Negroes of the South the right to vote and the right to hold office."

In presumed contrast to the tea party's invocation of states' rights, the notion of states' rights that pervaded the ratification debates on the 17th Amendment was a subterfuge for the continued oppression of blacks. In defeating the "race rider" Southern Democrats attempted to attach to the 17th Amendment, the 62nd Congress reaffirmed African Americans' right to vote.

None of this suggests that the tea party's concern with the responsiveness of government — and the Senate in particular — is not important and genuine.

more, here: Why we have and should keep the 17th Amendment - latimes

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

 

[dcraelin]

For the 5th time, if you don't like the laws, use you right to vote to change them. If you think nobody is worthy of your vote, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF.

Regardless, the Constitution has worked for 220+ years...leave it alone.

There are many of us who do not feel the Constitution is working well because there are too many people in government who neither respect it or give it much concern at all. The purpose of this thread is to discuss that. If you do not wish to discuss that I will wish you a pleasant evening and suggest any number of other threads out there that might be of greater interest.

And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?

Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.

C'mon...I mean seriously. Corruption (both large and small) is nothing new in our government. Somehow our lineage dealt with it through the power of the vote. Why can't we all of the sudden play by the same rules?

In this case the ‘corruption’ refers to the incorrect perception that the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution has been ‘corrupted,’ that current Constitutional jurisprudence is ‘false’ or ‘wrong,’ and that the courts are ‘ignoring’ the ‘will of the people,’ acting in manner not intended by the Founding Generation.

Well, yeah, I get that but Congress cannot be corrupt; it's members can. Courts cannot be corrupt, it's judges can. We've always have had corruption in these bodies...its nothing new. I've been told that the vote is now worthless because the system is corrupt. By definition; it cannot be corrupt because the system is people-based.

The structure of our system can be of such a form that it enables or fosters corruption.....so Congress can be corrupt, so the SC can be corrupt. ....

and they are......WE need to restructure government to give the people more power

 

[dcraelin]

I think there are a lot of misconceptions on the Senate and the 17th being speculated here in this thread.

That an ostensibly populist movement like the tea party would so openly disdain a populist constitutional amendment is itself a noteworthy contradiction. But the repeal idea also reflects a common misconception of the Senate as a representative of the states as well as a misunderstanding of the true reason for the 17th Amendment's existence.

The legislative appointment of senators that preceded the 17th Amendment was not uniformly or even primarily viewed as a means of protecting states' rights in the national government. First, as framers such as James Madison pointed out at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was the undue solicitude of state legislatures to popular will that precipitated the effort to form the national government. The appointment of senators by these same legislatures would likewise reflect the sovereignty of the people, not abstract states' rights.

Indeed, even under legislative appointment, many state legislatures routinely held popular primaries or conducted polls to determine whom to appoint to the Senate. And once appointed, senators voted individually rather than on a per state basis, and there was no mechanism to recall a senator who cast a vote with which his state legislature disagreed.

All of these incidents of the legislative appointment of senators underscore what Alexander Hamilton said of the notion of states' rights being represented by the Senate: "As states are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition[?]"

By the time the 61st and 62nd Congresses took up debate on ratification of the 17th Amendment, the notion of states' rights had been revivified by the Civil War and the Reconstruction-era intervention of the federal government in the affairs of the South. However, a significant if not preponderant share of the debate focused not on the merits of directly electing senators or on the abstract notion of the Senate representing states' rights, but rather on the attempt by Southern Democrats to repeal the 15th Amendment, which gives blacks the right to vote. Not atypical of the debates concerning direct elections is the sentiment of Sen. Davis of Georgia, who lamented that the 15th Amendment had given to "the ignorant, vicious, half barbaric Negroes of the South the right to vote and the right to hold office."

In presumed contrast to the tea party's invocation of states' rights, the notion of states' rights that pervaded the ratification debates on the 17th Amendment was a subterfuge for the continued oppression of blacks. In defeating the "race rider" Southern Democrats attempted to attach to the 17th Amendment, the 62nd Congress reaffirmed African Americans' right to vote.

None of this suggests that the tea party's concern with the responsiveness of government — and the Senate in particular — is not important and genuine.

more, here: Why we have and should keep the 17th Amendment - latimes

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

 

[RKMBrown]

I think there are a lot of misconceptions on the Senate and the 17th being speculated here in this thread.

That an ostensibly populist movement like the tea party would so openly disdain a populist constitutional amendment is itself a noteworthy contradiction. But the repeal idea also reflects a common misconception of the Senate as a representative of the states as well as a misunderstanding of the true reason for the 17th Amendment's existence.

The legislative appointment of senators that preceded the 17th Amendment was not uniformly or even primarily viewed as a means of protecting states' rights in the national government. First, as framers such as James Madison pointed out at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was the undue solicitude of state legislatures to popular will that precipitated the effort to form the national government. The appointment of senators by these same legislatures would likewise reflect the sovereignty of the people, not abstract states' rights.

Indeed, even under legislative appointment, many state legislatures routinely held popular primaries or conducted polls to determine whom to appoint to the Senate. And once appointed, senators voted individually rather than on a per state basis, and there was no mechanism to recall a senator who cast a vote with which his state legislature disagreed.

All of these incidents of the legislative appointment of senators underscore what Alexander Hamilton said of the notion of states' rights being represented by the Senate: "As states are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition[?]"

By the time the 61st and 62nd Congresses took up debate on ratification of the 17th Amendment, the notion of states' rights had been revivified by the Civil War and the Reconstruction-era intervention of the federal government in the affairs of the South. However, a significant if not preponderant share of the debate focused not on the merits of directly electing senators or on the abstract notion of the Senate representing states' rights, but rather on the attempt by Southern Democrats to repeal the 15th Amendment, which gives blacks the right to vote. Not atypical of the debates concerning direct elections is the sentiment of Sen. Davis of Georgia, who lamented that the 15th Amendment had given to "the ignorant, vicious, half barbaric Negroes of the South the right to vote and the right to hold office."

In presumed contrast to the tea party's invocation of states' rights, the notion of states' rights that pervaded the ratification debates on the 17th Amendment was a subterfuge for the continued oppression of blacks. In defeating the "race rider" Southern Democrats attempted to attach to the 17th Amendment, the 62nd Congress reaffirmed African Americans' right to vote.

None of this suggests that the tea party's concern with the responsiveness of government — and the Senate in particular — is not important and genuine.

more, here: Why we have and should keep the 17th Amendment - latimes

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

Yet another false meme of authoritarians... if the majority don't have tyranny well then the minority does. False! Checks on tyranny do not provide a tyranny. Liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over minority groups.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think there are a lot of misconceptions on the Senate and the 17th being speculated here in this thread.

That an ostensibly populist movement like the tea party would so openly disdain a populist constitutional amendment is itself a noteworthy contradiction. But the repeal idea also reflects a common misconception of the Senate as a representative of the states as well as a misunderstanding of the true reason for the 17th Amendment's existence.

The legislative appointment of senators that preceded the 17th Amendment was not uniformly or even primarily viewed as a means of protecting states' rights in the national government. First, as framers such as James Madison pointed out at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was the undue solicitude of state legislatures to popular will that precipitated the effort to form the national government. The appointment of senators by these same legislatures would likewise reflect the sovereignty of the people, not abstract states' rights.

Indeed, even under legislative appointment, many state legislatures routinely held popular primaries or conducted polls to determine whom to appoint to the Senate. And once appointed, senators voted individually rather than on a per state basis, and there was no mechanism to recall a senator who cast a vote with which his state legislature disagreed.

All of these incidents of the legislative appointment of senators underscore what Alexander Hamilton said of the notion of states' rights being represented by the Senate: "As states are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition[?]"

By the time the 61st and 62nd Congresses took up debate on ratification of the 17th Amendment, the notion of states' rights had been revivified by the Civil War and the Reconstruction-era intervention of the federal government in the affairs of the South. However, a significant if not preponderant share of the debate focused not on the merits of directly electing senators or on the abstract notion of the Senate representing states' rights, but rather on the attempt by Southern Democrats to repeal the 15th Amendment, which gives blacks the right to vote. Not atypical of the debates concerning direct elections is the sentiment of Sen. Davis of Georgia, who lamented that the 15th Amendment had given to "the ignorant, vicious, half barbaric Negroes of the South the right to vote and the right to hold office."

In presumed contrast to the tea party's invocation of states' rights, the notion of states' rights that pervaded the ratification debates on the 17th Amendment was a subterfuge for the continued oppression of blacks. In defeating the "race rider" Southern Democrats attempted to attach to the 17th Amendment, the 62nd Congress reaffirmed African Americans' right to vote.

None of this suggests that the tea party's concern with the responsiveness of government — and the Senate in particular — is not important and genuine.

more, here: Why we have and should keep the 17th Amendment - latimes

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

In the spirit of social contract, the majority must prevail, but in valid social contract, the goal is mutual benefit to all rather than advantage to some. But the only way to determine the public will to accept the goal is via majority vote. A wise society however will not impose laws, rules, and regulations on all via a thin margin, but will look for substantial majorities via referendum or whatever before imposing a law or rule or regulation on the whole. A vote of 51% for, 49% opposed on something that actually affects people is often a recipe for discontent and unhappiness that often doesn't end well. Not so much if there is a provision for people to opt out.

On a vote on what exterior siding to use on the new courthouse or what color the church sanctuary carpet should be, a simple majority vote probably works out pretty well. Other than irritation or annoyance based on personal preference, such things do not materially or physically impact anybody.

But what if Congress or the bureaucracy imposes a silly or impractical law on the states such as a mandatory 55 mph speed limit or the content in school lunches? Under Michelsen's amendment, those states that find such laws unreasonable or impractical or actually counter productive to what is supposed to be accomplished would be able to opt out and do their own thing on the grounds that the federal government has no constitutional authority to impose such requirements on the state. This would affect only the people in that one state and nobody else.

 

[RKMBrown]

Congress can't be corrupt? It can when the people who make it up are corrupt. The courts can't be corrupt? They can when the people who make them up are corrupt. The system can't be corrupt? Of course it can when corrupt people put a system in place. You can't separate the institutions from the people because without the people, the institutions do not exist. Repeal of the 17th amendment might or might not help change things, but without cooperation from a reformed House of Representatives, I think it is unlikely that a reformed Senate could force enough positive change to significantly turn things around.

There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect, however, when so many who distrust their state government more than they distrust the federal government would put the power to appoint Senators with those same state governments.

And those who think Michelsen's proposed amendment would create deadlock? Would not a responsible, honorable Senate up against a still corrupt and self-serving political class in the House not create deadlock?

Again, while I am increasingly convinced Michelsen's proposed amendment could be improved, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the concept itself that he proposes has real merit to start changing the national psyche from one that looks to big government for solutions to a society that again looks to itself and the states and local communities for solutions. And IMO, THAT would fix the problem.

What makes you think trading one tyrant group for another tyrant group is gonna solve anything? When do we figure out that what we need is less government power and more checks on said power? Throw the 17th out and the states get their check on power back. If we need two senates one by majority vote in the states, and one by the states themselves then create two senates that hold check over each other. Though the majority vote is already well represented by the house and potus.

 

[Foxfyre]

Congress can't be corrupt? It can when the people who make it up are corrupt. The courts can't be corrupt? They can when the people who make them up are corrupt. The system can't be corrupt? Of course it can when corrupt people put a system in place. You can't separate the institutions from the people because without the people, the institutions do not exist. Repeal of the 17th amendment might or might not help change things, but without cooperation from a reformed House of Representatives, I think it is unlikely that a reformed Senate could force enough positive change to significantly turn things around.

There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect, however, when so many who distrust their state government more than they distrust the federal government would put the power to appoint Senators with those same state governments.

And those who think Michelsen's proposed amendment would create deadlock? Would not a responsible, honorable Senate up against a still corrupt and self-serving political class in the House not create deadlock?

Again, while I am increasingly convinced Michelsen's proposed amendment could be improved, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the concept itself that he proposes has real merit to start changing the national psyche from one that looks to big government for solutions to a society that again looks to itself and the states and local communities for solutions. And IMO, THAT would fix the problem.

What makes you think trading one tyrant group for another tyrant group is gonna solve anything? When do we figure out that what we need is less government power and more checks on said power? Throw the 17th out and the states get their check on power back. If we need two senates one by majority vote in the states, and one by the states themselves then create two senates that hold check over each other. Though the majority vote is already well represented by the house and potus.

How does Michelsen's proposed amendment trade one tyrant group for another? How does giving the power back to the states and the people create a tyrant group?

 

[Darkwind]

For the 5th time, if you don't like the laws, use you right to vote to change them. If you think nobody is worthy of your vote, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF.

Regardless, the Constitution has worked for 220+ years...leave it alone.

There are many of us who do not feel the Constitution is working well because there are too many people in government who neither respect it or give it much concern at all. The purpose of this thread is to discuss that. If you do not wish to discuss that I will wish you a pleasant evening and suggest any number of other threads out there that might be of greater interest.

And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?

Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.

With each subsequent generation of politicians, they work to tighten the strangle-hold of elections and their assurances that they will win those elections.

A lone politician is unable to gather enough momentum to effect changes that are needed. Additionally, with a two party system, the parties ensure that the people who will be elected will aid them in continuing to tighten the noose around their hegemony. As it stands today, it takes an almost cataclysmic event to get real change in our government. Those in power know they have only to out wait the outrage and it goes back to business as usual.

 

[RKMBrown]

Congress can't be corrupt? It can when the people who make it up are corrupt. The courts can't be corrupt? They can when the people who make them up are corrupt. The system can't be corrupt? Of course it can when corrupt people put a system in place. You can't separate the institutions from the people because without the people, the institutions do not exist. Repeal of the 17th amendment might or might not help change things, but without cooperation from a reformed House of Representatives, I think it is unlikely that a reformed Senate could force enough positive change to significantly turn things around.

There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect, however, when so many who distrust their state government more than they distrust the federal government would put the power to appoint Senators with those same state governments.

And those who think Michelsen's proposed amendment would create deadlock? Would not a responsible, honorable Senate up against a still corrupt and self-serving political class in the House not create deadlock?

Again, while I am increasingly convinced Michelsen's proposed amendment could be improved, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the concept itself that he proposes has real merit to start changing the national psyche from one that looks to big government for solutions to a society that again looks to itself and the states and local communities for solutions. And IMO, THAT would fix the problem.

What makes you think trading one tyrant group for another tyrant group is gonna solve anything? When do we figure out that what we need is less government power and more checks on said power? Throw the 17th out and the states get their check on power back. If we need two senates one by majority vote in the states, and one by the states themselves then create two senates that hold check over each other. Though the majority vote is already well represented by the house and potus.

How does Michelsen's proposed amendment trade one tyrant group for another? How does giving the power back to the states and the people create a tyrant group?

The terms are not defined. So I define them broadly. I define enactment as meaning the entire constitution, all amendments, all bills, everything enacted by congress. Thus item one and two allows a minority of states (25%) to throw out the entire constitution, one bill one amendment at a time. It throws out all federal power giving all U.S. government power to the states. This assuming of course that the minority groups of states keep only the 10th amendment.

You see without some definition of terms the proposals could mean pretty much anything the reader desires them to mean.

As I said earlier... item three is the only one of the three that holds promise as a check on federal tyranny. Items one and two give all the power of government to the individual states with no check on tyranny by the states themselves. Give to much power to individual states and you end up with oddities like slavery in some states and without the power of the federal government to act as a check on that power.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think there are a lot of misconceptions on the Senate and the 17th being speculated here in this thread.

That an ostensibly populist movement like the tea party would so openly disdain a populist constitutional amendment is itself a noteworthy contradiction. But the repeal idea also reflects a common misconception of the Senate as a representative of the states as well as a misunderstanding of the true reason for the 17th Amendment's existence.

The legislative appointment of senators that preceded the 17th Amendment was not uniformly or even primarily viewed as a means of protecting states' rights in the national government. First, as framers such as James Madison pointed out at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was the undue solicitude of state legislatures to popular will that precipitated the effort to form the national government. The appointment of senators by these same legislatures would likewise reflect the sovereignty of the people, not abstract states' rights.

Indeed, even under legislative appointment, many state legislatures routinely held popular primaries or conducted polls to determine whom to appoint to the Senate. And once appointed, senators voted individually rather than on a per state basis, and there was no mechanism to recall a senator who cast a vote with which his state legislature disagreed.

All of these incidents of the legislative appointment of senators underscore what Alexander Hamilton said of the notion of states' rights being represented by the Senate: "As states are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition[?]"

By the time the 61st and 62nd Congresses took up debate on ratification of the 17th Amendment, the notion of states' rights had been revivified by the Civil War and the Reconstruction-era intervention of the federal government in the affairs of the South. However, a significant if not preponderant share of the debate focused not on the merits of directly electing senators or on the abstract notion of the Senate representing states' rights, but rather on the attempt by Southern Democrats to repeal the 15th Amendment, which gives blacks the right to vote. Not atypical of the debates concerning direct elections is the sentiment of Sen. Davis of Georgia, who lamented that the 15th Amendment had given to "the ignorant, vicious, half barbaric Negroes of the South the right to vote and the right to hold office."

In presumed contrast to the tea party's invocation of states' rights, the notion of states' rights that pervaded the ratification debates on the 17th Amendment was a subterfuge for the continued oppression of blacks. In defeating the "race rider" Southern Democrats attempted to attach to the 17th Amendment, the 62nd Congress reaffirmed African Americans' right to vote.

None of this suggests that the tea party's concern with the responsiveness of government — and the Senate in particular — is not important and genuine.

more, here: Why we have and should keep the 17th Amendment - latimes

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

I think the original theory that a Senate not dependent on the popular vote would be less susceptible to political pressures and more focused on the common good of the people in the represented state. But in a Congress that IMO exists much more to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth and only throws the people enough bones to buy them off, I don't know that an appointed rather than elected Senate would be less susceptible to that kind of thing.

The strength in Michelsen's amendment could break that cycle sufficiently that the Congress would be forced to work more with the constitutional defenders and reformers and come up with legislation that the people mostly approve and support.

 

[Foxfyre]

Congress can't be corrupt? It can when the people who make it up are corrupt. The courts can't be corrupt? They can when the people who make them up are corrupt. The system can't be corrupt? Of course it can when corrupt people put a system in place. You can't separate the institutions from the people because without the people, the institutions do not exist. Repeal of the 17th amendment might or might not help change things, but without cooperation from a reformed House of Representatives, I think it is unlikely that a reformed Senate could force enough positive change to significantly turn things around.

There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect, however, when so many who distrust their state government more than they distrust the federal government would put the power to appoint Senators with those same state governments.

And those who think Michelsen's proposed amendment would create deadlock? Would not a responsible, honorable Senate up against a still corrupt and self-serving political class in the House not create deadlock?

Again, while I am increasingly convinced Michelsen's proposed amendment could be improved, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the concept itself that he proposes has real merit to start changing the national psyche from one that looks to big government for solutions to a society that again looks to itself and the states and local communities for solutions. And IMO, THAT would fix the problem.

What makes you think trading one tyrant group for another tyrant group is gonna solve anything? When do we figure out that what we need is less government power and more checks on said power? Throw the 17th out and the states get their check on power back. If we need two senates one by majority vote in the states, and one by the states themselves then create two senates that hold check over each other. Though the majority vote is already well represented by the house and potus.

How does Michelsen's proposed amendment trade one tyrant group for another? How does giving the power back to the states and the people create a tyrant group?

The terms are not defined. So I define them broadly. I define enactment as meaning the entire constitution, all amendments, all bills, everything enacted by congress. Thus item one and two allows a minority of states (25%) to throw out the entire constitution, one bill one amendment at a time. It throws out all federal power giving all U.S. government power to the states. This assuming of course that the minority groups of states keep only the 10th amendment.

You see without some definition of terms the proposals could mean pretty much anything the reader desires them to mean.

As I said earlier... item three is the only one of the three that holds promise as a check on federal tyranny. Items one and two give all the power of government to the individual states with no check on tyranny by the states themselves.

Sections 1 and 2 of Michelsen's proposed amendment do not apply to the existing Constitution itself--they only provide a means to encourage any laws, rules, or regs imposed by Congress or the bureaucracy to comply with the existing Constitution.

 

[RKMBrown]

Congress can't be corrupt? It can when the people who make it up are corrupt. The courts can't be corrupt? They can when the people who make them up are corrupt. The system can't be corrupt? Of course it can when corrupt people put a system in place. You can't separate the institutions from the people because without the people, the institutions do not exist. Repeal of the 17th amendment might or might not help change things, but without cooperation from a reformed House of Representatives, I think it is unlikely that a reformed Senate could force enough positive change to significantly turn things around.

There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect, however, when so many who distrust their state government more than they distrust the federal government would put the power to appoint Senators with those same state governments.

And those who think Michelsen's proposed amendment would create deadlock? Would not a responsible, honorable Senate up against a still corrupt and self-serving political class in the House not create deadlock?

Again, while I am increasingly convinced Michelsen's proposed amendment could be improved, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the concept itself that he proposes has real merit to start changing the national psyche from one that looks to big government for solutions to a society that again looks to itself and the states and local communities for solutions. And IMO, THAT would fix the problem.

What makes you think trading one tyrant group for another tyrant group is gonna solve anything? When do we figure out that what we need is less government power and more checks on said power? Throw the 17th out and the states get their check on power back. If we need two senates one by majority vote in the states, and one by the states themselves then create two senates that hold check over each other. Though the majority vote is already well represented by the house and potus.

How does Michelsen's proposed amendment trade one tyrant group for another? How does giving the power back to the states and the people create a tyrant group?

The terms are not defined. So I define them broadly. I define enactment as meaning the entire constitution, all amendments, all bills, everything enacted by congress. Thus item one and two allows a minority of states (25%) to throw out the entire constitution, one bill one amendment at a time. It throws out all federal power giving all U.S. government power to the states. This assuming of course that the minority groups of states keep only the 10th amendment.

You see without some definition of terms the proposals could mean pretty much anything the reader desires them to mean.

As I said earlier... item three is the only one of the three that holds promise as a check on federal tyranny. Items one and two give all the power of government to the individual states with no check on tyranny by the states themselves.

Sections 1 and 2 of Michelsen's proposed amendment do not apply to the existing Constitution itself--they only provide a means to encourage any laws, rules, or regs imposed by Congress or the bureaucracy to comply with the existing Constitution.

Where does it say that? Why would it not also apply to constitutional amendments? Are constitutional amendments not enactments by our government? Cite pls. Where would the constitution be if the states threw out all laws, all bills, all "enactments" related to the constitutional amendments?

 

[Foxfyre]

For the 5th time, if you don't like the laws, use you right to vote to change them. If you think nobody is worthy of your vote, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF.

Regardless, the Constitution has worked for 220+ years...leave it alone.

There are many of us who do not feel the Constitution is working well because there are too many people in government who neither respect it or give it much concern at all. The purpose of this thread is to discuss that. If you do not wish to discuss that I will wish you a pleasant evening and suggest any number of other threads out there that might be of greater interest.

And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?

Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.

With each subsequent generation of politicians, they work to tighten the strangle-hold of elections and their assurances that they will win those elections.

A lone politician is unable to gather enough momentum to effect changes that are needed. Additionally, with a two party system, the parties ensure that the people who will be elected will aid them in continuing to tighten the noose around their hegemony. As it stands today, it takes an almost cataclysmic event to get real change in our government. Those in power know they have only to out wait the outrage and it goes back to business as usual.

I agree. And that's why Michelsen's proposed amendment struck such a resonant chord with me. While I think my own proposed amendment to deny any branch of federal government ability to benefit any group or demographic that does not equally benefit all is the ONLY way to restore integrity to the process, most are not willing to go that far with me.

Michelsen's proposal, even if it needs some tweaking and adjustment, definitely would restore much power to the states and would give those dedicated reformers and constitutional watchdogs a much bigger voice.

 

[Foxfyre]

Congress can't be corrupt? It can when the people who make it up are corrupt. The courts can't be corrupt? They can when the people who make them up are corrupt. The system can't be corrupt? Of course it can when corrupt people put a system in place. You can't separate the institutions from the people because without the people, the institutions do not exist. Repeal of the 17th amendment might or might not help change things, but without cooperation from a reformed House of Representatives, I think it is unlikely that a reformed Senate could force enough positive change to significantly turn things around.

There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect, however, when so many who distrust their state government more than they distrust the federal government would put the power to appoint Senators with those same state governments.

And those who think Michelsen's proposed amendment would create deadlock? Would not a responsible, honorable Senate up against a still corrupt and self-serving political class in the House not create deadlock?

Again, while I am increasingly convinced Michelsen's proposed amendment could be improved, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the concept itself that he proposes has real merit to start changing the national psyche from one that looks to big government for solutions to a society that again looks to itself and the states and local communities for solutions. And IMO, THAT would fix the problem.

What makes you think trading one tyrant group for another tyrant group is gonna solve anything? When do we figure out that what we need is less government power and more checks on said power? Throw the 17th out and the states get their check on power back. If we need two senates one by majority vote in the states, and one by the states themselves then create two senates that hold check over each other. Though the majority vote is already well represented by the house and potus.

How does Michelsen's proposed amendment trade one tyrant group for another? How does giving the power back to the states and the people create a tyrant group?

The terms are not defined. So I define them broadly. I define enactment as meaning the entire constitution, all amendments, all bills, everything enacted by congress. Thus item one and two allows a minority of states (25%) to throw out the entire constitution, one bill one amendment at a time. It throws out all federal power giving all U.S. government power to the states. This assuming of course that the minority groups of states keep only the 10th amendment.

You see without some definition of terms the proposals could mean pretty much anything the reader desires them to mean.

As I said earlier... item three is the only one of the three that holds promise as a check on federal tyranny. Items one and two give all the power of government to the individual states with no check on tyranny by the states themselves.

Sections 1 and 2 of Michelsen's proposed amendment do not apply to the existing Constitution itself--they only provide a means to encourage any laws, rules, or regs imposed by Congress or the bureaucracy to comply with the existing Constitution.

Where does it say that? Why would it not also apply to constitutional amendments? Are constitutional amendments not enactments by our government? Cite pls. Where would the constitution be if the states threw out all laws, all bills, all "enactments" related to the constitutional amendments?

Michelsen was careful to refer to the benchmark for evaluation as 'this constitution'. He obviously was not suggesting that anybody have ability to override the process specified for amendment within that constitution. His proposal obviously refers to requiring compliance with the existing constitution.

 

[RKMBrown]

For the 5th time, if you don't like the laws, use you right to vote to change them. If you think nobody is worthy of your vote, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF.

Regardless, the Constitution has worked for 220+ years...leave it alone.

There are many of us who do not feel the Constitution is working well because there are too many people in government who neither respect it or give it much concern at all. The purpose of this thread is to discuss that. If you do not wish to discuss that I will wish you a pleasant evening and suggest any number of other threads out there that might be of greater interest.

And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?

Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.

With each subsequent generation of politicians, they work to tighten the strangle-hold of elections and their assurances that they will win those elections.

A lone politician is unable to gather enough momentum to effect changes that are needed. Additionally, with a two party system, the parties ensure that the people who will be elected will aid them in continuing to tighten the noose around their hegemony. As it stands today, it takes an almost cataclysmic event to get real change in our government. Those in power know they have only to out wait the outrage and it goes back to business as usual.

I agree. And that's why Michelsen's proposed amendment struck such a resonant chord with me. While I think my own proposed amendment to deny any branch of federal government ability to benefit any group or demographic that does not equally benefit all is the ONLY way to restore integrity to the process, most are not willing to go that far with me.

Michelsen's proposal, even if it needs some tweaking and adjustment, definitely would restore much power to the states and would give those dedicated reformers and constitutional watchdogs a much bigger voice.

I'll repeat. It meant one thing when you read it. It meant an entirely different thing when I read it. Define the terms used in the proposed amendment, and provide examples of how it would be used. Then we can have some interesting discussion. Till then it means whatever you think it means.. and it also means what I think it means. IOW it's nonsensical.

 

[RKMBrown]

What makes you think trading one tyrant group for another tyrant group is gonna solve anything? When do we figure out that what we need is less government power and more checks on said power? Throw the 17th out and the states get their check on power back. If we need two senates one by majority vote in the states, and one by the states themselves then create two senates that hold check over each other. Though the majority vote is already well represented by the house and potus.

How does Michelsen's proposed amendment trade one tyrant group for another? How does giving the power back to the states and the people create a tyrant group?

The terms are not defined. So I define them broadly. I define enactment as meaning the entire constitution, all amendments, all bills, everything enacted by congress. Thus item one and two allows a minority of states (25%) to throw out the entire constitution, one bill one amendment at a time. It throws out all federal power giving all U.S. government power to the states. This assuming of course that the minority groups of states keep only the 10th amendment.

You see without some definition of terms the proposals could mean pretty much anything the reader desires them to mean.

As I said earlier... item three is the only one of the three that holds promise as a check on federal tyranny. Items one and two give all the power of government to the individual states with no check on tyranny by the states themselves.

Sections 1 and 2 of Michelsen's proposed amendment do not apply to the existing Constitution itself--they only provide a means to encourage any laws, rules, or regs imposed by Congress or the bureaucracy to comply with the existing Constitution.

Where does it say that? Why would it not also apply to constitutional amendments? Are constitutional amendments not enactments by our government? Cite pls. Where would the constitution be if the states threw out all laws, all bills, all "enactments" related to the constitutional amendments?

Michelsen was careful to refer to the benchmark for evaluation as 'this constitution'. He obviously was not suggesting that anybody have ability to override the process specified for amendment within that constitution. His proposal obviously refers to requiring compliance with the existing constitution.

Benchmark? What does that mean? Who will act as a check on this new state power to ensure that said benchmark is adhered to? State based constitutional scholars? Huh?

This amendment proposal is nothing more than a political speech designed to whip up the masses to demand something new, without actually specifying what it is that it is specifying. This is no different than "change you can believe in..."

 

[Care4all]

I think there are a lot of misconceptions on the Senate and the 17th being speculated here in this thread.

That an ostensibly populist movement like the tea party would so openly disdain a populist constitutional amendment is itself a noteworthy contradiction. But the repeal idea also reflects a common misconception of the Senate as a representative of the states as well as a misunderstanding of the true reason for the 17th Amendment's existence.

The legislative appointment of senators that preceded the 17th Amendment was not uniformly or even primarily viewed as a means of protecting states' rights in the national government. First, as framers such as James Madison pointed out at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was the undue solicitude of state legislatures to popular will that precipitated the effort to form the national government. The appointment of senators by these same legislatures would likewise reflect the sovereignty of the people, not abstract states' rights.

Indeed, even under legislative appointment, many state legislatures routinely held popular primaries or conducted polls to determine whom to appoint to the Senate. And once appointed, senators voted individually rather than on a per state basis, and there was no mechanism to recall a senator who cast a vote with which his state legislature disagreed.

All of these incidents of the legislative appointment of senators underscore what Alexander Hamilton said of the notion of states' rights being represented by the Senate: "As states are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition[?]"

By the time the 61st and 62nd Congresses took up debate on ratification of the 17th Amendment, the notion of states' rights had been revivified by the Civil War and the Reconstruction-era intervention of the federal government in the affairs of the South. However, a significant if not preponderant share of the debate focused not on the merits of directly electing senators or on the abstract notion of the Senate representing states' rights, but rather on the attempt by Southern Democrats to repeal the 15th Amendment, which gives blacks the right to vote. Not atypical of the debates concerning direct elections is the sentiment of Sen. Davis of Georgia, who lamented that the 15th Amendment had given to "the ignorant, vicious, half barbaric Negroes of the South the right to vote and the right to hold office."

In presumed contrast to the tea party's invocation of states' rights, the notion of states' rights that pervaded the ratification debates on the 17th Amendment was a subterfuge for the continued oppression of blacks. In defeating the "race rider" Southern Democrats attempted to attach to the 17th Amendment, the 62nd Congress reaffirmed African Americans' right to vote.

None of this suggests that the tea party's concern with the responsiveness of government — and the Senate in particular — is not important and genuine.

more, here: Why we have and should keep the 17th Amendment - latimes

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

Thus the filibuster, or "unlimited debate'' for most everything in the Senate...

and for the past 6-years this has made it more like the "the tyranny of the minority'' on to the majority and not the tyranny of the majority on to the minority, in the Senate....

But taking away our ability to cast a vote for our own representative of our state for the Senate will not and would not stop any of the problems we are encountering in the Senate.

There is no provision in the constitution that the State gvt can impeach or recall any US Senator they had selected, there is no greater control over the Senators other than crony politics....we the people SHOULD have more say in who represents us, and our State, in Washington DC, and this is precisely WHY we were given that power through the 17th, and wisely so...imo, because you may think that our gvt in DC has been corrupt over the years....but LOCAL and STATE gvts have been much more corrupt.... Can you say, ''Chicago politics'', or 'Illinois politics''....? It has an ugly meaning for a reason and many States have their own corrupt cronyism that is much much worse than that of DC, believe it or not.... so to me, our direct vote of our US representatives for our State, our US Senators....has a less chance of corruption taking place than if we left it up to our State gvt who is knee deep in cronyism and political crapola already....

this doesn't mean that I don't see some of the failures taking place in DC that you, Foxy lady, and others have pointed out...just that I do not believe repealing the 17th is the answer or even near... the root of the problem...

Gotta run...love to hear what you think....be back later!

Care

 

[Foxfyre]

How does Michelsen's proposed amendment trade one tyrant group for another? How does giving the power back to the states and the people create a tyrant group?

The terms are not defined. So I define them broadly. I define enactment as meaning the entire constitution, all amendments, all bills, everything enacted by congress. Thus item one and two allows a minority of states (25%) to throw out the entire constitution, one bill one amendment at a time. It throws out all federal power giving all U.S. government power to the states. This assuming of course that the minority groups of states keep only the 10th amendment.

You see without some definition of terms the proposals could mean pretty much anything the reader desires them to mean.

As I said earlier... item three is the only one of the three that holds promise as a check on federal tyranny. Items one and two give all the power of government to the individual states with no check on tyranny by the states themselves.

Sections 1 and 2 of Michelsen's proposed amendment do not apply to the existing Constitution itself--they only provide a means to encourage any laws, rules, or regs imposed by Congress or the bureaucracy to comply with the existing Constitution.

Where does it say that? Why would it not also apply to constitutional amendments? Are constitutional amendments not enactments by our government? Cite pls. Where would the constitution be if the states threw out all laws, all bills, all "enactments" related to the constitutional amendments?

Michelsen was careful to refer to the benchmark for evaluation as 'this constitution'. He obviously was not suggesting that anybody have ability to override the process specified for amendment within that constitution. His proposal obviously refers to requiring compliance with the existing constitution.

Benchmark? What does that mean? Who will act as a check on this new state power to ensure that said benchmark is adhered to? State based constitutional scholars? Huh?

This amendment proposal is nothing more than a political speech designed to whip up the masses to demand something new, without actually specifying what it is that it is specifying. This is no different than "change you can believe in..."

I disagree. I see a lot of substance there. But again the 'it is a stupid concept and not worthy of discussion' argument (or any reasonable facsimile), is a strong indicator that this thread is unsuitable to participate in and the member should find something else to do.

What check needs to be on state powers? The concept of the Constitution is that the federal government's responsibilities/authority be few and enumerated and the state's powers be otherwise numerous and unlimited. The Constitution assigned specific authorities and responsibilities to the federal government. There is nothing in Michelsen's amendment suggesting that anybody have power to overturn any of that other than by the amendment process written into the Constitution itself.

I have provided several examples now of federal mandates that a state might resist, i.e. a federally mandated speed limit. Who does it hurt if Nevada or New Mexico sees such mandate as unconstitutional and, within their own state only, can choose to refuse to comply with impunity?

 

[RKMBrown]

I think there are a lot of misconceptions on the Senate and the 17th being speculated here in this thread.

That an ostensibly populist movement like the tea party would so openly disdain a populist constitutional amendment is itself a noteworthy contradiction. But the repeal idea also reflects a common misconception of the Senate as a representative of the states as well as a misunderstanding of the true reason for the 17th Amendment's existence.

The legislative appointment of senators that preceded the 17th Amendment was not uniformly or even primarily viewed as a means of protecting states' rights in the national government. First, as framers such as James Madison pointed out at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was the undue solicitude of state legislatures to popular will that precipitated the effort to form the national government. The appointment of senators by these same legislatures would likewise reflect the sovereignty of the people, not abstract states' rights.

Indeed, even under legislative appointment, many state legislatures routinely held popular primaries or conducted polls to determine whom to appoint to the Senate. And once appointed, senators voted individually rather than on a per state basis, and there was no mechanism to recall a senator who cast a vote with which his state legislature disagreed.

All of these incidents of the legislative appointment of senators underscore what Alexander Hamilton said of the notion of states' rights being represented by the Senate: "As states are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition[?]"

By the time the 61st and 62nd Congresses took up debate on ratification of the 17th Amendment, the notion of states' rights had been revivified by the Civil War and the Reconstruction-era intervention of the federal government in the affairs of the South. However, a significant if not preponderant share of the debate focused not on the merits of directly electing senators or on the abstract notion of the Senate representing states' rights, but rather on the attempt by Southern Democrats to repeal the 15th Amendment, which gives blacks the right to vote. Not atypical of the debates concerning direct elections is the sentiment of Sen. Davis of Georgia, who lamented that the 15th Amendment had given to "the ignorant, vicious, half barbaric Negroes of the South the right to vote and the right to hold office."

In presumed contrast to the tea party's invocation of states' rights, the notion of states' rights that pervaded the ratification debates on the 17th Amendment was a subterfuge for the continued oppression of blacks. In defeating the "race rider" Southern Democrats attempted to attach to the 17th Amendment, the 62nd Congress reaffirmed African Americans' right to vote.

None of this suggests that the tea party's concern with the responsiveness of government — and the Senate in particular — is not important and genuine.

more, here: Why we have and should keep the 17th Amendment - latimes

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

Thus the filibuster, or "unlimited debate'' for most everything in the Senate...

and for the past 6-years this has made it more like the "the tyranny of the minority'' on to the majority and not the tyranny of the majority on to the minority, in the Senate....

But taking away our ability to cast a vote for our own representative of our state for the Sente will not and would not stop any of the problems we are encountering in the Senate.

There is no provision in the constitution that the State gvt can impeach or recall any US Senator they had selected, there is no greater control over the Senators other than crony politics....we the people SHOULD have more say in who represents us, and our State, in Washington DC, and this is precisely WHY we were given that power through the 17th, and wisely so...imo, because you may think that our gvt in DC has been corrupt over the years....but LOCAL and STATE gvts have been much more corrupt.... Can you say, ''Chicago politics'', or 'Illinois politics''....? It has an ugly meaning for a reason and many States have their own corrupt cronyism that is much much worse than that of DC, believe it or not.... so to me, our direct vote of our US representatives for our State, our US Senators....has a less chance of corruption taking place than if we left it up to our State gvt who is knee deep in cronyism and political crapola already....

this doesn't mean that I don't see some of the failures taking place in DC that you, Foxy lady, and others have pointed out...just that I do not believe repealing the 17th is the answer or even near... the root of the problem...

Gotta run...love to hear what you think....be back later!

Care

Filibusters are a good thing. They are a check on power. While you may have a desire for "something" anything to be done, that does not mean that the status quo wasn't better than the change being proposed. That just means that the people who want change have been good at wagging the tail.

If the problem with the Senate is and was corruption by the Senate through corporate influence, for example, what makes you think the 17th amendment fixed it? Again the different houses of congress were meant to be checks on power ... they were not meant to all be put together the same way so as to give one majority of people power over minority groups.

 

[RKMBrown]

The terms are not defined. So I define them broadly. I define enactment as meaning the entire constitution, all amendments, all bills, everything enacted by congress. Thus item one and two allows a minority of states (25%) to throw out the entire constitution, one bill one amendment at a time. It throws out all federal power giving all U.S. government power to the states. This assuming of course that the minority groups of states keep only the 10th amendment.

You see without some definition of terms the proposals could mean pretty much anything the reader desires them to mean.

As I said earlier... item three is the only one of the three that holds promise as a check on federal tyranny. Items one and two give all the power of government to the individual states with no check on tyranny by the states themselves.

Sections 1 and 2 of Michelsen's proposed amendment do not apply to the existing Constitution itself--they only provide a means to encourage any laws, rules, or regs imposed by Congress or the bureaucracy to comply with the existing Constitution.

Where does it say that? Why would it not also apply to constitutional amendments? Are constitutional amendments not enactments by our government? Cite pls. Where would the constitution be if the states threw out all laws, all bills, all "enactments" related to the constitutional amendments?

Michelsen was careful to refer to the benchmark for evaluation as 'this constitution'. He obviously was not suggesting that anybody have ability to override the process specified for amendment within that constitution. His proposal obviously refers to requiring compliance with the existing constitution.

Benchmark? What does that mean? Who will act as a check on this new state power to ensure that said benchmark is adhered to? State based constitutional scholars? Huh?

This amendment proposal is nothing more than a political speech designed to whip up the masses to demand something new, without actually specifying what it is that it is specifying. This is no different than "change you can believe in..."

I disagree. I see a lot of substance there. But again the 'it is a stupid concept and not worthy of discussion' argument (or any reasonable facsimile), is a strong indicator that this thread is unsuitable to participate in and the member should find something else to do.

What check needs to be on state powers? The Constitution assigned specific authorities and responsibilities to the federal government. There is nothing in Michelsen's amendment suggesting that anybody have power to overturn any of that other than by the amendment process written into the Constitution itself.

I have provided several examples now of federal mandates that a state might resist, i.e. a federally mandated speed limit. Who does it hurt if Nevada or New Mexico sees such mandate as unconstitutional and, within their own state, can choose to refuse to comply with impunity?

So now you say you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states? Where does it say that in his proposed amendment? I read that those 25% can stop all federal bills from moving forward. Or are you saying this amendment throws out the 14th amendment?

Section 1.. "that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions." I read that as clearly stating that the 25% may throw out a bill or any law for all the states. Section 1 is not section 2.