Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[OohPooPahDoo]

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

You "believe" ? I think its quite obvious that is fact! Everything the Republicans do is motivated by winning at any cost to democracy. Heck - a lot of them don't even think we should have a democracy. Republicans believe - and are correct - that if they limit the power of the American voter, they will be better positioned.

 

[oldfart]

It pains me greatly to have to agree with Lonestar on anything (my brother is one of those folks residing in Texas who was not born there and is generally considered an American rather than a Texan, as "Texans" seem to deem the two categories mutually exclusive). But he has one thing right, although he gets there by the wrong route.

Who do you think elected Senators before the 17th Amendment? Here's a hint, it was the state legislature. And who are the folks in state legislature? Elected officials from across the state, so in essence everyone in the State is represented in the state legislature. Therefore no one is disenfranchised.

In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) the United States Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision (Harlan alone dissenting) that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. The specific case dealt with the Alabama Senate (the plaintiffs were from Jefferson County [Birmingham]). In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Everett Dirksen was sufficiently enraged to push for a Constitutional amendment to allow for states to have disproportionate legislative districts, but it went nowhere.

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.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's hardly a case for taking away an individual's right to vote for a Senator.

How do you think state legislators become state legislators?

Who is more responsive to the people, a U.S. Senator, or a state assemblyman?

 

[g5000]

In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) the United States Supreme Court ruled in an 8-1 decision (Harlan alone dissenting) that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population. The specific case dealt with the Alabama Senate (the plaintiffs were from Jefferson County [Birmingham]). In his majority decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren said "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres. Legislators are elected by voters, not farms or cities or economic interests."

Outstanding! That is one of the three "one man, one vote" Supreme Court decisions to which I referred in my OP which are key to understanding electoral weighting.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

 

[Papageorgio]

I would like to change it back to the states deciding their Senators. The reason, so less influence by corporate money. Also it would hopefully get rid of 30year Senators.

 

[PrometheusBound]

The Libretardians want to take away our right to vote for our Senators and give it to some cabal in the state legislature, which is easier for them to bribe. What other rights do these egomaniacs want to take from us in the name of "liberty"?

 

[Avatar4321]

I believe that is the real purpose of the drive to repeal the 17th amendment, with the restoring-states-authority-over-the-federal-government argument just the thinnest of smokescreens.


Have at it.

You "believe" ? I think its quite obvious that is fact! Everything the Republicans do is motivated by winning at any cost to democracy. Heck - a lot of them don't even think we should have a democracy. Republicans believe - and are correct - that if they limit the power of the American voter, they will be better positioned.

I think you need to replace Republican with Democrat and you'd be exactly correct

And you are right, we shouldn't have a democracy. We should have a Republic. Which is what our Founders gave us.

 

[oldfart]

Surely you can see how a Republican legislature would select a Republican to represent their state in the US Senate.

I agree.

Since there are 27 Republican-controlled state legislatures at the moment, it is not a stretch to say they would send 54 Republicans to the Senate, which would be a completely different outcome than the current one.

This has nothing to do with denying a state's equal suffrage.

If the assumption is that the same voters who elect a US Senator from a given state also elect the state legislatures that might select a US Senator, I fail to see your argument. You get the same number of Senators from each party either way, adjusting for the fact that 1/3 of the Senate is elected each two years and that there are some closely contested states where both directly elected Senators and the state legislature might change hands.

My point is that the tilt in the Senate has nothing to do with how Senators are selected; it is the result of how states are distributed by population.

 

[Contumacious]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

t.

The "Amendment" ought to abolish instead of repealed since it was NEVER adopted.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.[2]



Utah REJECTED the amendment and several states did not vote for it.

.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Texas' congressional lines are drawn by the state legislature, as a regular statute, subject to gubernatorial veto. The members of the state House committee with responsibility for redistricting are listed here; the members of the state Senate committee are listed here.

The legislature is also primarily responsible for drawing state legislative lines. If it fails to pass a plan, authority falls to a five-member backup commission, in place since 1948. The commission consists of the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the state House, the state Attorney General, the Comptroller of Public Accounts, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office. [Tex. Const. art. III, § 28]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:

It is equally unnecessary to dilate on the appointment of senators by the State legislatures. Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.

In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

t.

The "Amendment" ought to abolish instead of repealed since it was NEVER adopted.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.[2]



Utah REJECTED the amendment and several states did not vote for it.

.

The 17th amendment doesn't deprive the states of equal suffrage in the Senate you blubbering moron. Each state still has 2 Senators. Where did you go to school? I just wanna make sure I don't send my kid there.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I believe it should be repealed for the reason Madison cited.

As President, Madison managed to get the nation's capital burned down, more incompetent in national defense than even the Heir Guardsman was. He's doing it again, the pint-sized Dolley doll.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I believe it should be repealed for the reason Madison cited.

As President, Madison managed to get the nation's capital burned down, more incompetent in national defense than even the Heir Guardsman was. He's doing it again, the pint-sized Dolley doll.

He also holds the record for longest Presidential vacation.

 

[g5000]

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.

Texas' congressional lines are drawn by the state legislature, as a regular statute, subject to gubernatorial veto. The members of the state House committee with responsibility for redistricting are listed here; the members of the state Senate committee are listed here.

The legislature is also primarily responsible for drawing state legislative lines. If it fails to pass a plan, authority falls to a five-member backup commission, in place since 1948. The commission consists of the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the state House, the state Attorney General, the Comptroller of Public Accounts, and the Commissioner of the General Land Office. [Tex. Const. art. III, § 28]

And yet gerrymandering still occurs, even in Texas. Concern about gerrymandering is legitimate.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

 

[g5000]

I believe it should be repealed for the reason Madison cited.

As President, Madison managed to get the nation's capital burned down, more incompetent in national defense than even the Heir Guardsman was. He's doing it again, the pint-sized Dolley doll.

It sounds to me like you are arguing the merits of a standing army.

Madison is my favorite Founder. Just sayin'.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

I'm not sure how you'd do that.

 

[Avatar4321]

In keeping with the idea I proposed in a topic about Mark Levin's proposed constitutional amendmeent that each is worthy of a topic alone, I decided to start with one that I believe will be the least emotionally-laden.

Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Levin proposes returning the election of US Senators to the way the process worked at the beginning of our republic. Back then, US Senators were elected by their respective state legislatures instead of by the people.

James Madison made the following argument for electing by state legislatures in Federalist Paper No. 62:



In other words, Madison was saying this method reinforced the authority of the states over the federal government.

t.

The "Amendment" ought to abolish instead of repealed since it was NEVER adopted.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.[2]



Utah REJECTED the amendment and several states did not vote for it.

.

The 17th amendment doesn't deprive the states of equal suffrage in the Senate you blubbering moron. Each state still has 2 Senators. Where did you go to school? I just wanna make sure I don't send my kid there.

One could argue that the 17th amendment makes the Senators a representative of the people of the state and not the state as was originally intended.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The Libretardians want to take away our right to vote for our Senators and give it to some cabal in the state legislature, which is easier for them to bribe. What other rights do these egomaniacs want to take from us in the name of "liberty"?

Another one showing his ignorance.

The Senators would be elected by the very people we elected as our representatives. They aren't some cabal of legislatures but elected officials.