Levin: Repeal the 17th Amendment

[RKMBrown]

The voice of the States is reflected in their Congressmen and Senators duly elected by the people of that state

The state is nothing but an entity of the people in that state

It's like talking to a tape recorder... The same answer regardless what the question is. It's as if some people have never been taught to think for themselves.

Millions of Americans think for themselves and directly elect their representatives

Conservatives want to take that away from them because those Americans no longer support conservative candidates

Gonna guess you are not smart enough to understand the difference between majority vote for a portion of congress and a representative vote for folks who are not necessarily in the large cities. Or are you saying screw anyone that is not in a major city?

 

[rightwinger]

It's like talking to a tape recorder... The same answer regardless what the question is. It's as if some people have never been taught to think for themselves.

Millions of Americans think for themselves and directly elect their representatives

Conservatives want to take that away from them because those Americans no longer support conservative candidates

Gonna guess you are not smart enough to understand the difference between majority vote for a portion of congress and a representative vote for folks who are not necessarily in the large cities. Or are you saying screw anyone that is not in a major city?

Let me see....

A person in a large city counts for one vote and a person in the country counts for one vote

 

[rightwinger]

A Senator from California does not represent the State of California.......he represents the people of California

 

[freedombecki]

Repeal of the 17th will never happen. Mindless reactionaries will immediately claim you're trying to take away people's voting rights.

In my opinion, we should just abolish the U.S. Senate because it no longer serves the purpose it was created for. It was intended to represent the interest of the individual state government so that the federal government couldn't become too powerful and overbearing. The 17th Amendment did away with that protection so I see no purpose for the body to continue to exist if we aren't willing to roll back the clock.

Well, Don't Taz Me, if we don't give the states their authority to run the nation, they have absolutely no reason to tolerate one another if you don't tolerate any of them. We'd be stronger as a nation if it sheds its recent animosities along party lines. It won't do that without respect.

It took the 17th amendment and made the nation more corrupt over time than it was back then.

Getting power by precinct corruption nationwide is a blight. The only way we can end that is to return power to states and stop the bullshit corruption by stopping slander and stopping crooks from running for political office. The appointment of judges to vote party line is also corrupt. Taking the onus off conscience has destroyed the character of people in the country, and you can't get character back without a sacrifice.

We have to just say no to corruption. We're not doing that.

 

[RKMBrown]

Millions of Americans think for themselves and directly elect their representatives

Conservatives want to take that away from them because those Americans no longer support conservative candidates

Gonna guess you are not smart enough to understand the difference between majority vote for a portion of congress and a representative vote for folks who are not necessarily in the large cities. Or are you saying screw anyone that is not in a major city?

Let me see....

A person in a large city counts for one vote and a person in the country counts for one vote

You again, you are saying screw the people who don't live in the big cities. Screw em who cares if they don't have representation. For that matter why have representatives from the states, let's just make the whole vote based on 51% for the entire country. The majority of the country should pick all of the representatives for all of the states.

 

[rightwinger]

Gonna guess you are not smart enough to understand the difference between majority vote for a portion of congress and a representative vote for folks who are not necessarily in the large cities. Or are you saying screw anyone that is not in a major city?

Let me see....

A person in a large city counts for one vote and a person in the country counts for one vote

You again, you are saying screw the people who don't live in the big cities. Screw em who cares if they don't have representation. For that matter why have representatives from the states, let's just make the whole vote based on 51% for the entire country. The majority of the country should pick all of the representatives for all of the states.

Screw them?

Are you claiming they deserve more than one vote?

 

[RKMBrown]

Let me see....

A person in a large city counts for one vote and a person in the country counts for one vote

You again, you are saying screw the people who don't live in the big cities. Screw em who cares if they don't have representation. For that matter why have representatives from the states, let's just make the whole vote based on 51% for the entire country. The majority of the country should pick all of the representatives for all of the states.

Screw them?

Are you claiming they deserve more than one vote?

The way it should work is there is one house of congress that is based on popular vote. The house of representatives. The other house is supposed to be based on regional interest. That's why two senators from each state irregardless of head count. To turn the senate on it's head and make it based on head count... is nutz for some states. Some states have rural and cities. To make the representation entirely based on head count screws the rural districts. The smaller states/districts get screwed. But I guess that's what you want. Screw rural disctricts. They should be forced to bend to the will of the majority that about right? Why not just kill the 49% that disagrees with you and get it over with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A question for those who support the current system.. pro-17th Amendment.

If both houses of the Congress are direct elections by the people, who is at the Federal Level to represent the voice of the States.

I would like to remind people that we are the "United States of America"... not the "United People of America". There are 50 Sovreign States, each with different needs, concerns, and responsiblities.

Incorrect:

It might be objected that because the States ratified the Constitution, the people can delegate power only through the States or by acting in their capacities as citizens of particular States. See post, at 2-3. But in McCulloch v. Maryland [1819], the Court set forth its authoritative rejection of this idea:

"The Convention which framed the constitution was indeed elected by the State legislatures. But the instrument . . . was submitted to the people. . . . It is true, they assembled in their several States--and where else should they have assembled? No political dreamer was ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which separate the States, and of compounding the American people into one common mass. Of consequence, when they act, they act in their States. But the measures they adopt do not, on that account, cease to be the measures of the people themselves, or become the measures of the State governments." 4 Wheat., at 403.

The political identity of the entire people of the Union is reinforced by the proposition, which I take to be beyond dispute, that, though limited as to its objects, the National Government is and must be controlled by the people without collateral interference by the States. McCulloch affirmed this proposition as well, when the Court rejected the suggestion that States could interfere with federal powers. "This was not intended by the American people. They did not design to make their government dependent on the States." Id., at 432. The States have no power, reserved or otherwise, over the exercise of federal authority within its proper sphere.

There can be no doubt, if we are to respect the republican origins of the Nation and preserve its federal character, that there exists a federal right of citizenship, a relationship between the people of the Nation and their National Government, with which the States may not interfere.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZC.html

So we are indeed the "United People of America," citizens of one Nation, where there are no ‘sovereign states,’ and where the voice of the people is supreme.

Consequently, the states have but one concern and one responsibility: to obey the Federal Constitution and its case law, the Federal courts, and Federal laws – and to above all ensure they acknowledge and respect the civil liberties of all their residents, citizens of one Nation.

 

[rightwinger]

You again, you are saying screw the people who don't live in the big cities. Screw em who cares if they don't have representation. For that matter why have representatives from the states, let's just make the whole vote based on 51% for the entire country. The majority of the country should pick all of the representatives for all of the states.

Screw them?

Are you claiming they deserve more than one vote?

The way it should work is there is one house of congress that is based on popular vote. The house of representatives. The other house is supposed to be based on regional interest. That's why two senators from each state irregardless of head count. To turn the senate on it's head and make it based on head count... is nutz for some states. Some states have rural and cities. To make the representation entirely based on head count screws the rural districts. The smaller states/districts get screwed. But I guess that's what you want. Screw rural disctricts. They should be forced to bend to the will of the majority that about right? Why not just kill the 49% that disagrees with you and get it over with.

Those people in smaller states and rural areas are already overepresented in Congress. 600,000 people in Wyoming have the same Senate clout as 40 million in California

And you want to make it worse

 

[candycorn]

Having people pick their representatives is the best idea. Mitch McConnell wins by one vote, who is to say that the one vote came from Lexington or Paducah?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Screw them?

Are you claiming they deserve more than one vote?

The way it should work is there is one house of congress that is based on popular vote. The house of representatives. The other house is supposed to be based on regional interest. That's why two senators from each state irregardless of head count. To turn the senate on it's head and make it based on head count... is nutz for some states. Some states have rural and cities. To make the representation entirely based on head count screws the rural districts. The smaller states/districts get screwed. But I guess that's what you want. Screw rural disctricts. They should be forced to bend to the will of the majority that about right? Why not just kill the 49% that disagrees with you and get it over with.

Those people in smaller states and rural areas are already overepresented in Congress. 600,000 people in Wyoming have the same Senate clout as 40 million in California

And you want to make it worse

make what worse

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Screw them?

Are you claiming they deserve more than one vote?

The way it should work is there is one house of congress that is based on popular vote. The house of representatives. The other house is supposed to be based on regional interest. That's why two senators from each state irregardless of head count. To turn the senate on it's head and make it based on head count... is nutz for some states. Some states have rural and cities. To make the representation entirely based on head count screws the rural districts. The smaller states/districts get screwed. But I guess that's what you want. Screw rural disctricts. They should be forced to bend to the will of the majority that about right? Why not just kill the 49% that disagrees with you and get it over with.

Those people in smaller states and rural areas are already overepresented in Congress. 600,000 people in Wyoming have the same Senate clout as 40 million in California

And you want to make it worse

Why should the people of Wyoming not have the same power as California when running the federal government? I'm not really in favor of being a country run by the morons in California just because they have more idiots as residents.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The real life effect of this is that Democrats would gain in state legislatures, because the implications of having Republican majorities in those state legislatures would get out the Democrat vote,

and turnout is always the weak link in the Democratic Party.

And?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Jeebus you're a brainwashed fool. This house is a gerrymandered mess. The "no compromise, un-American Tea Pary GOP (TIME)" fixed it so they have more reps even though they lost the popular vote, and have ruined everything since. A disgrace.

Stupid fascist, no commies here. Keep fighting for the greedy idiot rich and ditto corporations. Just how the nonrich and the country have been ruined the last 30 years. See sig.

You didn't even respond to the question.

Yes, the house is a gerrymandered mess, but that has nothing to do with my question.
------------------
But in regards to the Gerrymandering, it was done by the Commies and Fascists alike. They capped the number of Representatives, so instead of having 1 Rep for 30,000 people, now you have 1 Rep per 700,000. If they uncapped the House and returned to 1 Rep for every 30,000, we would have about 9000 Representatives. Try Gerrymandering that.

They're elected by different entities- you can't gerrymander a state. Duh. UNLESS you repeal the 17th. Moral: The new bs GOP suqs, and hater dupes are functional idiots.

???

Do you ever back up your claims with evidence, documents or anything other than pure emotion and partisan/anti-white rhetoric and shit?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

A Senator from California does not represent the State of California.......he represents the people of California

Which is a problem, because the People of California are already represented in the House, by proportion of their population respective to the nation as a whole.

Since 1 Senator from North Dakota represents only 1/100 the number of persons in California, this mean the each Citizen of North Dakota's vote counts 100x more than a vote of a Citizen of California.

That is unequal.

 

[OriginalShroom]

A Senator from California does not represent the State of California.......he represents the people of California

Which is a problem, because the People of California are already represented in the House, by proportion of their population respective to the nation as a whole.

Since 1 Senator from North Dakota represents only 1/100 the number of persons in California, this mean the each Citizen of North Dakota's vote counts 100x more than a vote of a Citizen of California.

That is unequal.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that the Senate was not designed to be the voice of "the people" in Washington DC, but to be the voice of the State?

 

[jon_berzerk]

A Senator from California does not represent the State of California.......he represents the people of California

Which is a problem, because the People of California are already represented in the House, by proportion of their population respective to the nation as a whole.

Since 1 Senator from North Dakota represents only 1/100 the number of persons in California, this mean the each Citizen of North Dakota's vote counts 100x more than a vote of a Citizen of California.

That is unequal.

Why is it so hard for some to understand that the Senate was not designed to be the voice of "the people" in Washington DC, but to be the voice of the State?

the house was designed to be the voice of the people

the senate the voice of the state

 

[Missouri_Mike]

A Senator from California does not represent the State of California.......he represents the people of California

Which is a problem, because the People of California are already represented in the House, by proportion of their population respective to the nation as a whole.

Since 1 Senator from North Dakota represents only 1/100 the number of persons in California, this mean the each Citizen of North Dakota's vote counts 100x more than a vote of a Citizen of California.

That is unequal.

It's equal because each of the 50 states gets the same input regardless of their population since they all have to live under the same rules they institute. North Dakota should have the same power to tell the feds to f*ck off as California does. Only an idiot would want to live under the rule of Cal and the East coast just because they have more people.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

A Senator from California does not represent the State of California.......he represents the people of California

Which is a problem, because the People of California are already represented in the House, by proportion of their population respective to the nation as a whole.

Since 1 Senator from North Dakota represents only 1/100 the number of persons in California, this mean the each Citizen of North Dakota's vote counts 100x more than a vote of a Citizen of California.

That is unequal.

It's equal because each of the 50 states gets the same input regardless of their population since they all have to live under the same rules they institute. North Dakota should have the same power to tell the feds to f*ck off as California does. Only an idiot would want to live under the rule of Cal and the East coast just because they have more people.

Yes, each of the 50 States gets equal input, but each person in each state gets unequal input.

But apparently you haven't read this thread, because you would have known that I fully support the REPEAL of the 17th Amendment and returning to the State legislatures appointing the Senators. Try reading from the start, or at the very least, read each of my posts on this thread before you come down on me with such vitriol. I'm on your side.

I was pointing out a GLARING flaw in right-wingers declaration.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Which is a problem, because the People of California are already represented in the House, by proportion of their population respective to the nation as a whole.

Since 1 Senator from North Dakota represents only 1/100 the number of persons in California, this mean the each Citizen of North Dakota's vote counts 100x more than a vote of a Citizen of California.

That is unequal.

It's equal because each of the 50 states gets the same input regardless of their population since they all have to live under the same rules they institute. North Dakota should have the same power to tell the feds to f*ck off as California does. Only an idiot would want to live under the rule of Cal and the East coast just because they have more people.

Yes, each of the 50 States gets equal input, but each person in each state gets unequal input.

So what? Everyone get's 1/50th of the input to the federal government at the state level. How is that a bad thing?