Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[PrometheusBound]

So you would like to return to the days before the 17th amendment when senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favors and money behind closed doors.

You mean they are not bought and sold now?

Do you think a Chicago born woman, who lived in New York for a very short amount of time, could have become the Senator of New York if the State Legislature had a say in it (Hillary Clinton).

Hillary ran on a "national" agenda, not a New York agenda.

New Yorkers didn't think so. But of course you Diploma Dumbos know better than New Yorkers what is good for New York, because Americans who don't agree with your cult are a drooling, self-destructive zombie mob.

 

[Flopper]

So you would like to return to the days before the 17th amendment when senatorial elections were "bought and sold", changing hands for favors and money behind closed doors.

Senate seats today are bought and sold by the the national parties to well connected looters such as Kaiser and Blue Cross. The national parties determine exactly who will be in the Senate - the state has zero impact on the process. Dianne Feinstein has 30 + years in the Senate because she serves Bank of America. BofA shopped for a Senator from the DNC in the 80's, as were sold the rights to Feinstein. The state of California has shit to say about it - Senators are appointed at the national level and represent ONLY the national interests of their respective parties.

In spite of the PACS, and political machines that influence elections, I trust the American voter a lot more than I trust self serving politicians.

PACs are the offset to the machines. You simply don't grasp this because you are a partisan hack who bleats whatever your shameful party tells you to.

When politicians make the decision as to who will best serve the people what they are really doing is making a decision as to who will best serve their interest.

Electing representatives to elect representatives is based on the idea that government is too important to allow the people a direct a voice in who governs them which is how the USSR functioned.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The Representatives in the House most directly represent the interests of the people of a state in the Federal government. Actually, depending on the population size of the state, it is more accurate to say they represent the interests of the people within a community within a state in the Federal government.

But the Senators in the U.S. Senate were intended to represent the STATE. And the collective representatives of the people of a state IN that state (i.e., in their legislatures) should thus make the selection of the U.S. Senators from that State.

One of the various forms of Constitutionally crafted checks and balances was supposed to be FEDERALISM. The selection of U.S. Senators by the various States' legislatures was fully in keeping with the design and intent.

The change made to make it more of a popular (direct) election was nothing less than a serious mistake.

 

[Uncensored2008]

When politicians make the decision as to who will best serve the people what they are really doing is making a decision as to who will best serve their interest.

Because Senators are appointed by the national parties, it is the power brokers of those parties who serve the interests of those Senators. As such, the decisions that they make are based on the good of the national parties, not the good of the states they supposedly represent.

Electing representatives to elect representatives is based on the idea that government is too important to allow the people a direct a voice in who governs them which is how the USSR functioned.

Smarter men designed a system where peoples representatives would be many, and that the voice of competing ideas would be heard. Representatives of the states were also to be heard, they would be few and specifically meant to further the goals of the states.

Such a system made it more difficult to buy Senators - Carnegie complained bitterly of the fact that Western States did not do his bidding - and thus was born the 17th, as a means of placing all the power of the Senate in the hands of New York oligarchs.

 

[Flopper]

When politicians make the decision as to who will best serve the people what they are really doing is making a decision as to who will best serve their interest.

Because Senators are appointed by the national parties, it is the power brokers of those parties who serve the interests of those Senators. As such, the decisions that they make are based on the good of the national parties, not the good of the states they supposedly represent.

Electing representatives to elect representatives is based on the idea that government is too important to allow the people a direct a voice in who governs them which is how the USSR functioned.

Smarter men designed a system where peoples representatives would be many, and that the voice of competing ideas would be heard. Representatives of the states were also to be heard, they would be few and specifically meant to further the goals of the states.

Such a system made it more difficult to buy Senators - Carnegie complained bitterly of the fact that Western States did not do his bidding - and thus was born the 17th, as a means of placing all the power of the Senate in the hands of New York oligarchs.

You seem to feel that people just can't be trusted to elect their own representatives, better to put that power in hands professional politicians who know what's best for the people. I think we're going have to agree to disagree here.

 

[FA_Q2]

If legislatures had been electing Senators, and if those elections had followed party lines,

in 2009 the Democrats would have had at least 62 Senators, safely over the filibuster.

lol, is that how it's supposed to work???

lolol

Yes. So far you and Clay are the only idiots in the room that cant see a situation without bullshit partisan glasses.

It’s like the pot trying to tell the chair it’s a kettle.

Are you retarded? Every conservative in this thread who is for this is arguing for it because they think it will get more Republican/conservative Senators elected.

I'm one of the few here that's showing you the truth on a non-partisan basis.

If you want to stop being retarded, the first step for you is to acknowledge that the repeal of this amendment is never going to happen.

No, I am not retarded because I know damn well what you just stated was a bald faced lie. That is what YOU demand they are doing because you are a hack that cannot see past your own party. I even proposed a solution to that as well in this very fucking thread but you are too filled with hate and blind ideology to even notice. Here is a clue – not everyone is a damn partisan hack like you. When you realize that, you might just start to see a little more reality past those colored glasses that you wear.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You seem to feel that people just can't be trusted to elect their own representatives, better to put that power in hands professional politicians who know what's best for the people. I think we're going have to agree to disagree here.

People don't elect Senators, don't be naive. The national parties appoint Senators. Prior to appointment - no one knows who the hell they are. The people vote "D" or "R" - that is the extent of their input into the process.

Senators are property of the national conventions - they don't do shit for their home state - and why would they? It isn't the state that puts them in power, or keeps them there.

 

[FA_Q2]

When politicians make the decision as to who will best serve the people what they are really doing is making a decision as to who will best serve their interest.

Electing representatives to elect representatives is based on the idea that government is too important to allow the people a direct a voice in who governs them which is how the USSR functioned.

No, it is based on the idea that the people will elect those that represent their interests and NOT the interests of the individual and SOVEREIGN states. They were right of course, the people will elect thost that represent them.

You seem to feel that people just can't be trusted to elect their own representatives, better to put that power in hands professional politicians who know what's best for the people. I think we're going have to agree to disagree here.

That glazes over the fact that the people will STILL elect the representatives directly. They STILL elect the president (the most POWERFUL politician in the government by FAR) and the house. That means the peoples will controls half the legislative office and the entire presidency. That in no way indicates that anyone does not think the people cannot be trusted to elect their own representatives. Turning the senate back over to the states has nothing to do with trusting the people or wanting to take a vote away. It has to do with the fact that those who believe that states should have rights recognize that they FLAT OUT do not. They have zero rights atm as the government runs roughshod over them as they have absolutely no voice in the federal government.

The senate would be able to turn away legislation that the senators felt WAS A STATE interest and a state responsibility. Right now, people ONLY vote what they think they want and the ENTIRE country abides by that majority rather than a senate turning some things BACK to a majority of the STATE to decide for itself. Layered government, a GOOD thing. It’s called Federalism and we no longer have it here.

 

[bendog]

You seem to feel that people just can't be trusted to elect their own representatives, better to put that power in hands professional politicians who know what's best for the people. I think we're going have to agree to disagree here.

People don't elect Senators, don't be naive. The national parties appoint Senators. Prior to appointment - no one knows who the hell they are. The people vote "D" or "R" - that is the extent of their input into the process.

Senators are property of the national conventions - they don't do shit for their home state - and why would they? It isn't the state that puts them in power, or keeps them there.

What? Senators rise through local politics, and then into state parties. This whole idea is simply about having fewer democratic senators. There's no federalism involved. And even state parties can be eschewed. Look at Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What? Senators rise through local politics, and then into state parties. This whole idea is simply about having fewer democratic senators. There's no federalism involved. And even state parties can be eschewed. Look at Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Utter nonsense.

The national parties decide who to place in the Senate, and will even move Senators around to different states, as they did with Hillary. There is nothing even remotely "local" about it. Party bosses decide in Washington.

 

[Mustang]

Even though I'm not a Democrat (and have never been one), I thoroughly enjoy listening to Levin do more to destroy the Republican Party than any group of partisan Democrats ever could.

He's fanning the flames of an internal GOP insurgency which could leave that party in tatters.

Go, Mark, GO!

 

[The T]

What? Senators rise through local politics, and then into state parties. This whole idea is simply about having fewer democratic senators. There's no federalism involved. And even state parties can be eschewed. Look at Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Utter nonsense.

The national parties decide who to place in the Senate, and will even move Senators around to different states, as they did with Hillary. There is nothing even remotely "local" about it. Party bosses decide in Washington.

And why the 'party system' is dangerous, and needs to be broken up...just as the same politicians like to break up 'monopolies' in the private sector.

 

[bendog]

What? Senators rise through local politics, and then into state parties. This whole idea is simply about having fewer democratic senators. There's no federalism involved. And even state parties can be eschewed. Look at Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Utter nonsense.

The national parties decide who to place in the Senate, and will even move Senators around to different states, as they did with Hillary. There is nothing even remotely "local" about it. Party bosses decide in Washington.

Dude, you're on crack. My two senators, and the one who retired a few years back, were all local politicians who rose through the ranks to run for congress, and moved on when senate opening emerged.

 

[Mustang]

What? Senators rise through local politics, and then into state parties. This whole idea is simply about having fewer democratic senators. There's no federalism involved. And even state parties can be eschewed. Look at Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Utter nonsense.

The national parties decide who to place in the Senate, and will even move Senators around to different states, as they did with Hillary. There is nothing even remotely "local" about it. Party bosses decide in Washington.

And why the 'party system' is dangerous, and needs to be broken up...just as the same politicians like to break up 'monopolies' in the private sector.

Good gosh, man, the 'party system' is not analogous with a monopoly. Dictatorship is. Like in a ONE party system.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Dude, you're on crack. My two senators, and the one who retired a few years back, were all local politicians who rose through the ranks to run for congress, and moved on when senate opening emerged.

They might have been, but they didn't "rise" so much as they were tapped by the party. Party bosses in D.C. decide who is most beneficial to national party goals, and that is who is appointed. They pick from various pools - one of the larger being local politicians. But that doesn't alter anything, once the national part appoints them to the Senate, they are beholden to the National party, not to their state.

 

[Flopper]

When politicians make the decision as to who will best serve the people what they are really doing is making a decision as to who will best serve their interest.

Electing representatives to elect representatives is based on the idea that government is too important to allow the people a direct a voice in who governs them which is how the USSR functioned.

No, it is based on the idea that the people will elect those that represent their interests and NOT the interests of the individual and SOVEREIGN states. They were right of course, the people will elect thost that represent them.

You seem to feel that people just can't be trusted to elect their own representatives, better to put that power in hands professional politicians who know what's best for the people. I think we're going have to agree to disagree here.

That glazes over the fact that the people will STILL elect the representatives directly. They STILL elect the president (the most POWERFUL politician in the government by FAR) and the house. That means the peoples will controls half the legislative office and the entire presidency. That in no way indicates that anyone does not think the people cannot be trusted to elect their own representatives. Turning the senate back over to the states has nothing to do with trusting the people or wanting to take a vote away. It has to do with the fact that those who believe that states should have rights recognize that they FLAT OUT do not. They have zero rights atm as the government runs roughshod over them as they have absolutely no voice in the federal government.

The senate would be able to turn away legislation that the senators felt WAS A STATE interest and a state responsibility. Right now, people ONLY vote what they think they want and the ENTIRE country abides by that majority rather than a senate turning some things BACK to a majority of the STATE to decide for itself. Layered government, a GOOD thing. It’s called Federalism and we no longer have it here.

The people have never had the right to elect their president, the electoral college does that. If the 17th amendment were repealed the people would lose their right to elect their senators also.

If the people of a state do not directly elect their Senators, they can not vote them out of office. A Senators constituents would be the members of the legislature that elected him, not the people. So as long as a senator pleases his legislative constituency, what the people want is irrelevant because the only way the people can remove the senator is to remove the state legislators that sent him to Washington and if those legislators are outside their district, they have no say at all.

Senators would in effect just be proxy voters for the legislative constituency that elected them. The more indirect representation you have the less voice the people have in how their government is run.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When politicians make the decision as to who will best serve the people what they are really doing is making a decision as to who will best serve their interest.

Because Senators are appointed by the national parties, it is the power brokers of those parties who serve the interests of those Senators. As such, the decisions that they make are based on the good of the national parties, not the good of the states they supposedly represent.

Electing representatives to elect representatives is based on the idea that government is too important to allow the people a direct a voice in who governs them which is how the USSR functioned.

Smarter men designed a system where peoples representatives would be many, and that the voice of competing ideas would be heard. Representatives of the states were also to be heard, they would be few and specifically meant to further the goals of the states.

Such a system made it more difficult to buy Senators - Carnegie complained bitterly of the fact that Western States did not do his bidding - and thus was born the 17th, as a means of placing all the power of the Senate in the hands of New York oligarchs.

You seem to feel that people just can't be trusted to elect their own representatives, better to put that power in hands professional politicians who know what's best for the people. I think we're going have to agree to disagree here.

Ultimately the power and authority of governance rests solely with the people, not the Constitution, nor the Federal government, nor state and local governments – but the people.

The people created the Constitution, they created the Federal system, and they sought a relationship between their National government absent interference from the states or other local jurisdictions.

Consequently, the people have the authority to amend the Constitution in the manor prescribed by the Founding Document to address any issue or issues they deem appropriate. And when an Amendment is ratified, it is imbued with the same authority and legitimacy as any Amendment ratified previously, or the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution prior to the Bill of Rights – including the 17th Amendment.

 

[The T]

Utter nonsense.

The national parties decide who to place in the Senate, and will even move Senators around to different states, as they did with Hillary. There is nothing even remotely "local" about it. Party bosses decide in Washington.

And why the 'party system' is dangerous, and needs to be broken up...just as the same politicians like to break up 'monopolies' in the private sector.

Good gosh, man, the 'party system' is not analogous with a monopoly. Dictatorship is. Like in a ONE party system.

When BOTH The House and Senate leaders act alike...BOTH parties in order to protect themselves? Been paying attention?

YOU had better wake up son.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You seem to feel that people just can't be trusted to elect their own representatives, better to put that power in hands professional politicians who know what's best for the people. I think we're going have to agree to disagree here.

People don't elect Senators, don't be naive. The national parties appoint Senators. Prior to appointment - no one knows who the hell they are. The people vote "D" or "R" - that is the extent of their input into the process.

Senators are property of the national conventions - they don't do shit for their home state - and why would they? It isn't the state that puts them in power, or keeps them there.

And THAT is the problem that needs afixin!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Utter nonsense.

The national parties decide who to place in the Senate, and will even move Senators around to different states, as they did with Hillary. There is nothing even remotely "local" about it. Party bosses decide in Washington.

And why the 'party system' is dangerous, and needs to be broken up...just as the same politicians like to break up 'monopolies' in the private sector.

Good gosh, man, the 'party system' is not analogous with a monopoly. Dictatorship is. Like in a ONE party system.

There is little real difference between a monopoly and a duopoly.