Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[rightwinger]

But when they implemented the 17th is wasn't a how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-progressives scam?

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

I agree...

Transfering more power from government to "We the People" is definitely progressive

Man are you one confused puppy. The 17th took power from the local people. Gee thee a history book not written by a commie.

The 17th amendment took power away from backroom politicians

 

[eflatminor]

Of course it's just another conservative how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-conservatives scam.

But when they implemented the 17th is wasn't a how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-progressives scam?

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Are you retarded? This 2013.

Well that settles it. When your hypocrisy has been exposed and you can't respond with logic, reason or specificity, tell us the date. Works ever time...

 

[eflatminor]

I agree...

Transfering more power from government to "We the People" is definitely progressive

Man are you one confused puppy. The 17th took power from the local people. Gee thee a history book not written by a commie.

The 17th amendment took power away from backroom politicians

Thank goodness that never happens in Washington DC...

 

[birddog]

In Illinois, we need the 17th. Without it, we would not have our one Republican Senator. The House and Senate are always controlled by the nasty Dimocrats. In the last Governor's election, the D gov won 3 counties out of 102. One of course was Cook, or Chicago. The taxes from all over the state go disproportionally to Chicago, the bastion of The Chicago Political Mob!

 

[rightwinger]

Man are you one confused puppy. The 17th took power from the local people. Gee thee a history book not written by a commie.

The 17th amendment took power away from backroom politicians

Thank goodness that never happens in Washington DC...

And when they get out of line, We the people vote them out of office

We have no such luxury with backroom political appointees

 

[g5000]

The most responsive people to the people are the people themselves.

Why should the assemblyman in my district, that I didn't vote for, be entitled to decide for me which candidate for the Senate to vote for?

Has your state assembly passed laws against animal cruelty? I bet it has.

How would you feel if the US Senate passed a law preempting your state's laws against animal cruelty?

This is not some fantasy scenario. This is a real world example. Republican Steve King is trying to include exactly such a preemption in the Farm Bill before Congress right now.

If your US Senator was appointed by your state legislature, what do you think the odds are that he would go against them and nullify their laws?

That is the kind of check on federal power which has been missing since the 17th amendment.

What if the above was phrased this way:

"Has your state assembly passed Jim Crow laws? I bet it has.

How would you feel if the US Senate passed a law preempting your state's Jim Crow laws ?"

The repeal of the 17th amendment would not eliminate federal pre-emption. It would just make it more unlikely, not impossible.

 

[g5000]

I've been for repealing the 17th for years.

A very unpopular position.

Please articulate your reasons.

It started by in High School, in the lat 70's. No later than 1978.

While my father was very well versed in American History, he had his degree in it, and we discussed American history nearly every evening, he was not very political. A Union Democrat would be the best way to describe him. Though he lost confidence in the Democratic Party when Carter was elected, he didn't like Carter from the git-go.

Anyway, my American Government teacher in High School was a Naturalized Italian who came to the U.S. when she was in her mid 20s. She knew the operation of the Federal Government inside and out.

It was from her that we learned of the 17th Amendment and what it meant and what it changed.

I discussed the topic with my father and we spent weeks going over it. He made me research the topic and give him reports on it.

It was at this time I first wondered why the State Governments would be willing to give up their Representation at the Federal Level. The Congress has two houses, the House of Representatives, otherwise known as "The People's House" which is supposed to be directly responsive to the people of each State. That is why they are supposed to represent approximitely the same number of people. So that every person has nearly the same Representation in Washington D. C. That is why States will gain or lose seats in the House.

Then there is the Senate. Two people from each State. They are supposed to be there to represent the interests of the State. What is best for States of Ohio, Florida, Main, New York, California, etc. These interests do not always align with the wishes of the people as individuals. Especially people who are very vocal and garner large microphones.

It is my opinion that most of those who pushed the 17th through were lead by the "progressives" of the era. Sociialists in all but name to be honest. Populists may be a better term. It's really 6 of one, a half dozen of another.

Either way, it has led to the downfall of the States having any voice in Washington, a voice which is desperately needed as the Federal Government has pushed more and more Unfunded mandates down to the States.. Mandates that may not have succeeded if the Senators were actually there to represent the States.

Thank you.

And it is true the 17th Amendment was a movement of the Progressive Era.

 

[eflatminor]

Can anyone here, without rambling on for a thousand words, explain to me why my losing my right to vote directly for the candidate of my choice for senator from my state is going to make my life better,

from the standpoint of my ability to participate in the democratic process that creates the government under which I'm obliged to live?

(I suggest clear concise numbered points)

First, voting for state representatives that in turn appoint federal Senators does not deter from your ability to participate in the democratic process. It enhances it.

To your points:

1) George Mason had a good point on the subject: “Let the state legislatures appoint the Senate,” Virginia’s George Mason urged at the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, lest a newly empowered federal government “swallow up the state legislatures.” The motion carried unanimously after Mason’s remarks.

2) Selection by state legislatures was a key pillar of the Constitution’s architecture, ensuring that the Senate would be a bulwark for decentralized government. It’s inconceivable that a Senator during the pre-17th Amendment era would vote for an ‘unfunded federal mandate.’

3) There is no indication that the shift to direct election did anything to eliminate or even reduce corruption in Senate elections.

4) The increased power of special interests was the purpose of the 17th Amendment. It allowed them to lobby senators directly, cutting out the middleman of the state legislatures.

5) Ironically, that’s why corporations and urban political machines — Progressives’ supposed enemies — supported the amendment.

6) Together with the 16th Amendment establishing an income tax, the 17th Amendment helped transform the states into little more than administrative units for the federal behemoth. The feds have the gold, and they increasingly make the rules — in education, health care, and more.

 

[eflatminor]

The 17th amendment took power away from backroom politicians

Thank goodness that never happens in Washington DC...

And when they get out of line, We the people vote them out of office

We have no such luxury with backroom political appointees

You don't elect your state representatives? Interesting.

 

[Synthaholic]

Ive been for restoring the Senate to the states for years as well. Because I agree with Madison's reasoning.

How many 25 year olds do you listen to for Constitutional guidance these days?

 

[g5000]

It seems to me those who oppose repealing the 17th amendment, having grown up in a world where states rights have been completely emasculated, are unable to fathom the benefits of restoring a check on federal expansionism.

 

[eagle7_31]

It seems to me those who oppose repealing the 17th amendment, having grown up in a world where states rights have been completely emasculated, are unable to fathom the benefits of restoring a check on federal expansionism.

That idea will go nowhere. What's your point?

 

[g5000]

Ive been for restoring the Senate to the states for years as well. Because I agree with Madison's reasoning.

How many 25 year olds do you listen to for Constitutional guidance these days?

First, James Madison was an exceptional person, and probably better educated than all of us put together.

Second, he wrote the Federalist Papers between the ages of 36 and 37, not when he was 25.

 

[NYcarbineer]

But when they implemented the 17th is wasn't a how-can-we-change-the-rules-to-favor-progressives scam?

Your hypocrisy is overwhelming.

Are you retarded? This 2013.

Well that settles it. When your hypocrisy has been exposed and you can't respond with logic, reason or specificity, tell us the date. Works ever time...

I'm surprised you would need it explained to you that I was not alive when the 17th amendment was passed.

 

[g5000]

It seems to me those who oppose repealing the 17th amendment, having grown up in a world where states rights have been completely emasculated, are unable to fathom the benefits of restoring a check on federal expansionism.

That idea will go nowhere. What's your point?

It explains why there is so much inertia, not necessarily opposition, behind repealing the 17th.

 

[rightwinger]

It seems to me those who oppose repealing the 17th amendment, having grown up in a world where states rights have been completely emasculated, are unable to fathom the benefits of restoring a check on federal expansionism.

My state has representatives in both the House and Senate

Doesn't yours?

 

[Synthaholic]

So a return to electing US Senators by state legislatures would skew the Senate a bit, but only to the degree that voters in substantially equal population districts in the state would vote for one party in a direct US Senate election and the other party in state legislative elections.

You're ignoring the gerrymandering. The ruling party of a state legislature gets to gerrymander the districts so they have a disproportionately higher representation.

Then we pass an amendment to stop Gerrymandering.

Do that first!

 

[RKMBrown]

Please articulate your reasons.

It started by in High School, in the lat 70's. No later than 1978.

While my father was very well versed in American History, he had his degree in it, and we discussed American history nearly every evening, he was not very political. A Union Democrat would be the best way to describe him. Though he lost confidence in the Democratic Party when Carter was elected, he didn't like Carter from the git-go.

Anyway, my American Government teacher in High School was a Naturalized Italian who came to the U.S. when she was in her mid 20s. She knew the operation of the Federal Government inside and out.

It was from her that we learned of the 17th Amendment and what it meant and what it changed.

I discussed the topic with my father and we spent weeks going over it. He made me research the topic and give him reports on it.

It was at this time I first wondered why the State Governments would be willing to give up their Representation at the Federal Level. The Congress has two houses, the House of Representatives, otherwise known as "The People's House" which is supposed to be directly responsive to the people of each State. That is why they are supposed to represent approximitely the same number of people. So that every person has nearly the same Representation in Washington D. C. That is why States will gain or lose seats in the House.

Then there is the Senate. Two people from each State. They are supposed to be there to represent the interests of the State. What is best for States of Ohio, Florida, Main, New York, California, etc. These interests do not always align with the wishes of the people as individuals. Especially people who are very vocal and garner large microphones.

It is my opinion that most of those who pushed the 17th through were lead by the "progressives" of the era. Sociialists in all but name to be honest. Populists may be a better term. It's really 6 of one, a half dozen of another.

Either way, it has led to the downfall of the States having any voice in Washington, a voice which is desperately needed as the Federal Government has pushed more and more Unfunded mandates down to the States.. Mandates that may not have succeeded if the Senators were actually there to represent the States.

Thank you.

And it is true the 17th Amendment was a movement of the Progressive Era.

Ayup, that's it in a nutshell. The mob voice has been used to drown out the liberty of the minority groups to have equal and fair representation. The 17th definitely put grease on the guillotine. The 14th due process clause, taking away our liberty by turning the Constitution upside down, is the knife of the guillotine.

 

[g5000]

It seems to me those who oppose repealing the 17th amendment, having grown up in a world where states rights have been completely emasculated, are unable to fathom the benefits of restoring a check on federal expansionism.

My state has representatives in both the House and Senate

Doesn't yours?

You seem to not understand the reasons for why Senators were appointed by legislatures. This was obviously a deliberate decision on the part of those who wrote and ratified the Constitution. Do you mean to say you never wondered why our Founders said we would directly elect the House but not the Senate? You never wondered why they purposely made the process different for the Senate? You never tried to understand the signficant difference that made?

Your state does not have as powerful a check on federal expansionism as we had in the past.

 

[RKMBrown]

It seems to me those who oppose repealing the 17th amendment, having grown up in a world where states rights have been completely emasculated, are unable to fathom the benefits of restoring a check on federal expansionism.

My state has representatives in both the House and Senate

Doesn't yours?

The senate used to represent the interests of the state legislatures, now it represents the popular vote. How hard is that for you to understand?