Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[Polk]

yeah, i can't think of anything better than letting the hacks in state legislatures appoint u.s. senators.

only a complete idiot could possibly think this is a good idea.

Then you think the Founders were complete idiots? Because that's the way they set it up.

The powers of the Senate are checked by the powers of the House of Representatives.

I think the Framers made a necessary concession to get the deal done.

 

[Polk]

hello?

it's 220 some years later. i wouldn't trust my state legislature to appoint a dogcatcher, let alone a u.s. senator

times change, fuckwit

How do mere years change the overall concept?

The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.

But what is the state if not a collective embodiment of its residents?

 

[MuadDib]

How do mere years change the overall concept?

The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.

But what is the state if not a collective embodiment of its residents?

The interests of the state as a collective may be different than the interests of the individuals.

For example, in the current fiscal dilemma, the Senate might not have such a hard time passing a budget, which is one of the most basic functions of the legislature, if it were not for the political issues involved with Senators worrying about popular reelection.

 

[del]

I dont see how time changes the necessity for checks and balances.

And considering they still appoint judges....

maybe the state legislature appoints judges where you're from, but not here, and thank god for little favors.

and feel free to explain how appointed senators are more of a check and balance than elected ones.

i'll wait

Because Senators then have to answer to the people you elected at a state level as to why they rubber stamp the stupid shit that the federal HoR passes....This tends to keep people engaged at the state and local levels, rather than just strolling into the polls every few years acting like they've done anything of substance.

Also, since federal taxes were apportioned to the states for collection (and some of them still are), it then fell upon state agencies to collect their share of the federal tax bill....If the federal Seante rubber stamped a tax increase or regulatory burden, they'd have some 'splaining to do rather than just playing along with the party and running for re-re-re-re-re-re-election again.

What is it about making Senators a basically elected imperial class that is attractive to you?

nothing. what is it about making state legislators king makers that you think is any better?

wake up and smell the coffee.

 

[Oddball]

maybe the state legislature appoints judges where you're from, but not here, and thank god for little favors.

and feel free to explain how appointed senators are more of a check and balance than elected ones.

i'll wait

Because Senators then have to answer to the people you elected at a state level as to why they rubber stamp the stupid shit that the federal HoR passes....This tends to keep people engaged at the state and local levels, rather than just strolling into the polls every few years acting like they've done anything of substance.

Also, since federal taxes were apportioned to the states for collection (and some of them still are), it then fell upon state agencies to collect their share of the federal tax bill....If the federal Seante rubber stamped a tax increase or regulatory burden, they'd have some 'splaining to do rather than just playing along with the party and running for re-re-re-re-re-re-election again.

What is it about making Senators a basically elected imperial class that is attractive to you?

nothing. what is it about making state legislators king makers that you think is any better?

wake up and smell the coffee.

Senators aren't kings....And they'd be less so were they subject to the approval of the state houses -which turn over very regularly- rather than being basically elected for life, or retirement, whichever comes first.

The guy who needs a whiff of the java is you.

 

[Polk]

The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.

But what is the state if not a collective embodiment of its residents?

The interests of the state as a collective may be different than the interests of the individuals.

For example, in the current fiscal dilemma, the Senate might not have such a hard time passing a budget, which is one of the most basic functions of the legislature, if it were not for the political issues involved with Senators worrying about popular reelection.

The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.

 

[freedombecki]

The Senate was never intended to represent your interests. It was intended to represent the interests of your state and to do so should remain outside of the popular election process. The House of Representatives represents your interests.

But what is the state if not a collective embodiment of its residents?

The interests of the state as a collective may be different than the interests of the individuals.

For example, in the current fiscal dilemma, the Senate might not have such a hard time passing a budget, which is one of the most basic functions of the legislature, if it were not for the political issues involved with Senators worrying about popular reelection.

You're right. When I was growing up, we never had an instance of an elected representative screaming at other U.S. Representatives like a Tasmanian Devil. (i.e., Anthony Weiner's screaming diatribes) I did see on television some legislative-type Russians engaging in fisticuffs in their Duma back in the 60s(?) It didn't seem right, as our American history classes mentioned the courtesy of elected representatives and especially Senators, so it never occurred to me anyone in the world would come to blows in the House or Senate due to rules of censure that were then exercised. I can see how something is missing without State legislatures being represented in Congress and having a say in final outcomes as the Senate does. States lost power with the amendment, it would seem to me.

Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe the old way wasn't so bad, even if some objected. Chaos is not better than old school Senators passing a budget and assuming the well-trained Oval Office would pay attention to its expense accounts.

 

[freedombecki]

But what is the state if not a collective embodiment of its residents?

The interests of the state as a collective may be different than the interests of the individuals.

For example, in the current fiscal dilemma, the Senate might not have such a hard time passing a budget, which is one of the most basic functions of the legislature, if it were not for the political issues involved with Senators worrying about popular reelection.

The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.

Well, those darn House Republicans. They're so close-minded their brains don't spill out all over the floor.

 

[Dante]

By the way, concepts do NOT change with time. Perceptions of it may change, but once an idea is conceived...it is out there FOREVER!

Over time, the concept of 'freedom' has come to mean different things to different people. I will go out on a limb as say in our lifetime the understanding and perception of the concept has changed

 

[Oddball]

The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.

Spending bills are supposed to originate in the HoR...WTF is anyone doing floating a budget bill in the Senate?

 

[Dante]

The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.

Spending bills are supposed to originate in the HoR...WTF is anyone doing floating a budget bill in the Senate?

PolitiFact Ohio | John Boehner says Senate Dems haven't passed a budget in more than 1,000 days

context is important

 

[Oddball]

So, Boehner is a stupid douchebag...What else is new?

 

[del]

The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.

Spending bills are supposed to originate in the HoR...WTF is anyone doing floating a budget bill in the Senate?

 

[Oddball]

The reason the Senate hasn't passed a budget is because whatever they pass can't pass the House.

Spending bills are supposed to originate in the HoR...WTF is anyone doing floating a budget bill in the Senate?

Yeah, I know...Just a fucking piece of paper.

 

[del]

Spending bills are supposed to originate in the HoR...WTF is anyone doing floating a budget bill in the Senate?

Yeah, I know...Just a fucking piece of paper.

Kids in the House - Grade School - How a Bill Becomes a Law

How a Bill Becomes a Law — FactMonster.com

edumicate yourself, buckwheat

or you could just call me a fabian socialist, statist motherfucker and declare victory.

 

[Oddball]

OK...Fine....It's taxing bills that are supposed to start in the HoR...My mistake.

Now, maybe you can 'splain why all of the proposed budget bills by Boiking haven't manged to even get any DEMOCRAT votes in the Senate.

That's some kind of republican obstructionism!

 

[del]

OK...Fine....It's taxing bills that are supposed to start in the HoR...My mistake.

Now, maybe you can 'splain why all of the proposed budget bills by Boiking haven't manged to even get any DEMOCRAT votes in the Senate.

That's some kind of republican obstructionism!

um, because they suck?

it's a little far afield from repealing the 17th, innit?

 

[Oddball]

Yes, yes it is...But I didn't bring up the subject.

 

[del]

Yes, yes it is...But I didn't bring up the subject.

neither did i.

carry on

 

[freedombecki]

OK...Fine....It's taxing bills that are supposed to start in the HoR...My mistake.

Now, maybe you can 'splain why all of the proposed budget bills by Boiking haven't manged to even get any DEMOCRAT votes in the Senate.

That's some kind of republican obstructionism!

um, because they suck?

it's a little far afield from repealing the 17th, innit?

We wouldn't be having this conversation if the Senate Majority Leader believed in fiscal restraint.

We have a President who doesn't know the difference between a million, a billion, and a trillion if they are not in numerical order. Nobody is going to own a budget that has no restraint placed on the White House's 9,851 czars, one for every specialty tit fighter on the DNC payoff list.