Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Vidi]

The structural arrangement of the senate selection was put in place for a specfic reason. The need for those watchdogs may not have been as clear in 1913....but history shows us what a mistake it was for the states to give up something so necessary instead of fixing the issues of the time.

Those issues have not gone away with the passage of the 17th. You have corruption at all levels and you also have money and power mixed in D.C. at an unprecidented level.

Wishing for the republics watchdogs to return and the re-elevation of the 10th amendment is nothing more than making politics more personal and more local.

Actually history shows us that corruption on the local level meant the appointments were rarely in the best interests of the States themselves. If one TRULY wanted to advocate for States rights, repealing the 17th amendment would be the LAST thing one would advocate.

 

[Vidi]

Wow...Corruption in politics!...Whodathunkit?

Too bad that Blago doesn't explain away the original reason that Senators were appointed by and beholden to the state legislatures.

But don't let that stop you from your regularly scheduled self-congratulation and condescending chickenshit...Wouldn't want to break your rhythm.

wow the ignorance just drips from every one of your posts, doesnt it?

to use your own word...extrapolate.

Or better yet....stop being so damned lazy and try Google. Youll get the answer on the first page...YOU may not understand it...but itll be there nonetheless.

 

[Oddball]

I understand the core argument just fine...And you've made no cogent to refutation.

Political corruption in picking an appointee still doesn't change the fact that said appointee would still be beholden to and serving at the pleasure of the state legislatures.

All your condescending egomaniacal deflections, diversions, ad hominems, non sequitr, red herrings and the entire litany of fallacious argumentation cannot change the fact.

Speaking of Google, try "Federalist Papers".

 

[Oddball]

From Federalist #62:

II. 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.

The Senate
Independent Journal
Wednesday, February 27, 1788
[James Madison]

I believe that you were sputtering some spittle about using Google?

 

[Vidi]

I understand the core argument just fine...And you've made no cogent to refutation.

Political corruption in picking an appointee still doesn't change the fact that said appointee would still be beholden to and serving at the pleasure of the state legislatures.

All your condescending egomaniacal deflections, diversions, ad hominems, non sequitr, red herrings and the entire litany of fallacious argumentation cannot change the fact.

Speaking of Google, try "Federalist Papers".

FINALLY! An actual argument!

Appointees were beholden to and served the state legislatures in the past. It led to rampant corruption, the selling off of the senate seats to the highest bidder, usually buisiness. It took the power out of the hands of the people and placed it into the hands of the few with wealth.

Are you advocating for an American Plutocracy?

 

[Vidi]

From Federalist #62:

II. 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.

The Senate
Independent Journal
Wednesday, February 27, 1788
[James Madison]

I believe that you were sputtering some spittle about using Google?

Original intent is a seperate argument. We can have that one too if you would like or would you rather stick to the single subject for now?

 

[Oddball]

No, it's not a separate argument...IT IS the argument.

And given that federal spending and bureaucracy has mushroomed since the passage of the 17th Amendment -along with the 16th and the Fed- the circumstantial evidence is quite compelling that you haven't a leg to stand on.

But you go ahead and keep flailing away, Sir Black Knight.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4]Monty Python-The Black Knight - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Vidi]

No, it's not a separate argument...IT IS the argument.

And given that federal spending and bureaucracy has mushroomed since the passage of the 17th Amendment -along with the 16th and the Fed- the circumstantial evidence is quite compelling that you haven't a leg to stand on.

But you go ahead and keep flailing away, Sir Black Knight.

Monty Python-The Black Knight - YouTube

Original intent is an irrelevant point because it relys on a static unchangable Constitution.

But the Constitution is NOT set in stone. It is a living document. The original intent of the Founders was that it could be changed by future generations when problems arose. Thats why they allowed for amendments in the first place. Had they disallowed amendments, then your point on original intent might be valid, but as you have yet to actually link the 17the amendment to the rise in government spending , you have not yet validated that point.

As far as the 17th amendment itself goes, problems arose and the Constitution was changed to deal with those problems, as allowed by the Constitution. It was proposed, it passed and then it was ratified by the states. All done within the parameters the Founder originally intended.

 

[Oddball]

What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.

The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.

By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal one total debacle.

 

[midcan5]

As I understand it - or have read - the senate represents minority interests, it stands in the way of power solely functioning for the majority. If it were to go back to the states given the bird brains elected at the local level lord help us. Citizens united has compounded this problem as money now buys elections. Consider the 2010 election as the example of why future historians will consider the Robert's court one of the worst. Now we have a bunch of crazies wanting women back in the fifties, blocking all job bills that help America, and claiming the communists are everywhere. Damn is this nation getting dumber or what?

"A final word on politics. As in economics nothing is certain save the certainty that there will be firm prediction by those who do not know. It is possible that in some election, near or far, a presidential candidate will emerge in the United States determined to draw into the campaign those not now impelled to vote. Conceivably those so attracted - those who are not threatened by higher taxes and who are encouraged by the vision of a new governing community committed to the rescue of the cities and the impacted underclass - could outnumber those lost because of the resulting invasion of contentment. If this happens the effort would succeed." John Kenneth Galbraith 'The Culture of Contentment'

 

[Vidi]

What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.

The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.

By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal one total debacle.

The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.

You are actually advocating for more corruption.

 

[Navy1960]

Madison also said in #62

II. 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

So then if public opinion i.e. 17th Amendment favors Direct election then that too is in-line with the so called "original intent ". If a new Amendment passes that returns the election of Senators back to the legislatures and I say good luck with that one, as you would have to convince the American pulbic to give up the right to elect their own Senator in favor of someone they may or may not have voted for i.e. an agent, subject to corruption, your looking at a long long battle.

 

[Dante]

the South lost this battle ages ago. give it up already!

 

[Listening]

Madison also said in #62

II. 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

So then if public opinion i.e. 17th Amendment favors Direct election then that too is in-line with the so called "original intent ". If a new Amendment passes that returns the election of Senators back to the legislatures and I say good luck with that one, as you would have to convince the American pulbic to give up the right to elect their own Senator in favor of someone they may or may not have voted for i.e. an agent, subject to corruption, your looking at a long long battle.

You are correct that it will be a long long battle.

But it can't be a battle all by itself. It has to be fought in the context of getting people to think about their states more as their soveriegns than D.C.

In this regard, the senate is simply there to ensure that the votes they cast at the local level can't be overridden by the morons we send to D.C.

As an aside: the left keeps pointing to the super low approval ratings of congress....and yet they say this system is better ? Haven't heard the explanation for that one yet.

If this were the case now, all the liberal factions of each state could be pushing a form of Romneycare at the state level. Each state could tailor it to their specific interests or needs or not have it at all. As it stands now, if Obamacare is squelched at the federal level, you are going to see it die for another 20 years. Nobody wants to talk about it at the state level (and why that is I don't understand......Romney care is supposedly successful.....even though Tenncare sucks......but it is doing something for somebody. Are liberals just to lazy to do one state at a time ?).

Giving up the right to elect your own senator does not sound as foreboding as giving up your citizenship in a state. Most liberals seem to want to do away with states anyway so I guess it is easy to understand how this would work. At that point, the meaning of the senators would go away.

Helk, maybe getting rid of the senate isn't such a bad idea.

BTW: Public Opinion is not opinion at all. The public didn't vote on the measure....it was passed in the same way you senators were appointed.....by states making the call. Most people have no clue about the structural function of senators.

 

[Listening]

What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.

The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.

By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal one total debacle.

The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.

You are actually advocating for more corruption.

Ah yes....except you folks keep griping about Citizens United. It has taken the power of the voter and reduced it by a factor of 50.

Now, instead of the corruption you complain about at the local level....you just have companies buying votes at the federal level. It is much more efficient for them. They don't have to run so many disinformation campaigns.

In effect, you are playing right into their hands.

 

[Navy1960]

Madison also said in #62

II. 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

So then if public opinion i.e. 17th Amendment favors Direct election then that too is in-line with the so called "original intent ". If a new Amendment passes that returns the election of Senators back to the legislatures and I say good luck with that one, as you would have to convince the American pulbic to give up the right to elect their own Senator in favor of someone they may or may not have voted for i.e. an agent, subject to corruption, your looking at a long long battle.

You are correct that it will be a long long battle.

But it can't be a battle all by itself. It has to be fought in the context of getting people to think about their states more as their soveriegns than D.C.

In this regard, the senate is simply there to ensure that the votes they cast at the local level can't be overridden by the morons we send to D.C.

As an aside: the left keeps pointing to the super low approval ratings of congress....and yet they say this system is better ? Haven't heard the explanation for that one yet.

If this were the case now, all the liberal factions of each state could be pushing a form of Romneycare at the state level. Each state could tailor it to their specific interests or needs or not have it at all. As it stands now, if Obamacare is squelched at the federal level, you are going to see it die for another 20 years. Nobody wants to talk about it at the state level (and why that is I don't understand......Romney care is supposedly successful.....even though Tenncare sucks......but it is doing something for somebody. Are liberals just to lazy to do one state at a time ?).

Giving up the right to elect your own senator does not sound as foreboding as giving up your citizenship in a state. Most liberals seem to want to do away with states anyway so I guess it is easy to understand how this would work. At that point, the meaning of the senators would go away.

Helk, maybe getting rid of the senate isn't such a bad idea.

BTW: Public Opinion is not opinion at all. The public didn't vote on the measure....it was passed in the same way you senators were appointed.....by states making the call. Most people have no clue about the structural function of senators.

Now this is just my presonal opinion here Listening, however, I do tend think there would be a better chance of reforming congress in general if it were not so career oriented. In that it would be less subject to the whims and fancies of K Street. I see our President constitutionally bound to a set number of years he or she can be President, so I cannot see why a constiutional Amendment that would do the same for Senate members would not hold true as well. However, the biggest problem you would have there is those same Senators would then have to vote for that Amendment, which is unlikely as they tend to be more interested in whats best for themselves rather than whats best for those they serve. This is not a partisan , or left or right thing, this applies to both side in an equal manner, for every John Murtha theres a Thad Cochran, so take your pick. In the end the best thing to do is start with young people and actually educate them on our form of Govt. and perhaps in the end an informed and educated voting public will be less likely to look at the party symbol next to the name and the person running who would better represent them and the state they live in.

 

[MuadDib]

What is relied upon are the rather static principles of dual sovereignty and separation of powers....Both crucial to the notion of a representative republic.

The founders created the amendment process to further perfect and protect the rights of those whom it served, not as a way for the servants to vote their way into becoming the masters.

By any measure, the 17th Amendment is a massive failure, as was the 18th....At least the nation had the good sense to repeal one total debacle.

The 17th amendment took the power from the corrupt state legislatures and gave it to the citizens. It increased the power of the voter. As you have yet to demonstrate in any way that the 17th amendment is even indirectly responsible for ANY negative effect at all, there would be no valid reason to repeal it, as it can only lead back to the buying and selling of senate seats to the biggest bidder.

You are actually advocating for more corruption.

There is evidence of a negative effect. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 3 years.

 

[JDzBrain]

There is evidence of a negative effect. The Senate hasn't passed a budget in over 3 years.

Yeah...but they did manage to do their part to pass Obamacare....an unconstitutional piece of brilliance which NO Senator would EVER have supported if they were actually accountable to the state they are from.

By decoupling the Senators from the legislatures of the states they are from, there have been three very negative effects.

First, it puts Senators at risk from the very same influences as the House of Representatives members who they are SUPPOSED to be ridding herd on. In other words, their allegiance is now just as likely to be in Washington as it is the state they are from.

Second, state representatives are no longer held responsible for the actions of the Senator THEY send to Washington to look out for the interest of their home state. So when they pass Obamacare, state repersentatives can just throw up their hands and say...hey, what the heck were they thinking...when in fact, they SHOULD be being held to account. THAT little fact has lead to the third negative.

It DRAMATICALLY lowered voter turnouts and perceptions of the importance of off...non national year elections when most state representatives are chosen. This means that only activist are likely to show up to vote. NOT the rank and file of the state's population. This has SCREWED the makeup of legislatures in this country. It has allowed parties...over time and through gerrymandering of voting districts...to engineer the makeup of state legislators.

An example of this is my home county. After the last election cycle, there is not ONE SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE in our county. We are conservatives. Yet our state representative is a flamin' freakin' liberal! How did that happen? Gerrymandering of voting district borders!

In direct violation of our state Constitution I might add. And it's happened because of the apathy generated for off year votes due to the 17th Amendment.

I would submit there has not been one single GOOD thing that has come from the 17th amendment...or ANY OTHER amendment after the original 10 amendments. NO GOOD has ever or will ever come from politicians who believe they were or are smarter than the founders and can make the Constitution "better" in ANY way by amending it!

Better by repealing amendments? HELL yes!

 

[Polk]

Now the Senate is subject to the same potitical processes as the House and nothing more that a higher form of the House of Representatives.

Hilarity ensues!

"Higher form" that is heavily skewed in the interest of backwaters.

 

[Polk]

Get rid of the Senate, altogether.

Really..why is it needed?

But otherwise the open land of Wyoming wouldn't get an equal voice. Why do you deny rocks their basic rights?