Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[rightwinger]

Repeal the 19th while we are at it.

Why split hairs?

We don't need militias any more. Let's repeal the second amendment

Sure....let's leave everything up to the government to decide, let them decide what's best for us.

Gun rights should be determined at the state level

Nation defense is provided by our armed services, militias are not needed

 

[Navy1960]

Hey good idea, get rid of the Senate and then what would you do when you find yourselves at the whim of say, California, New York, etc. ? and you just happen to say live in Wyoming? Well the answer is tough, as the house being the only body that matters and as it represents the "people" and the vast majority of those people are are in a small number of states, then it passes that the legislation that will pass will represent that. Theres a reason for the Senate, now while it at times seems to be slow and in disagreement with the House, that is exactly why it is there. It exists so that those people who live in states like Arizona, Alabama, Maine, take your pick don't find ourselves with the same laws that don't fit our states like they do in say, California, or Texas, etc. One more thing of note here, with no Senate, that would mark a shift away from the current form of Govt. we enjoy now and move towards a " majority rules" Govt. so I thought it worth reminding everyone of something.

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... John Adam's

 

[Listening]

Hey good idea, get rid of the Senate and then what would you do when you find yourselves at the whim of say, California, New York, etc. ? and you just happen to say live in Wyoming? Well the answer is tough, as the house being the only body that matters and as it represents the "people" and the vast majority of those people are are in a small number of states, then it passes that the legislation that will pass will represent that. Theres a reason for the Senate, now while it at times seems to be slow and in disagreement with the House, that is exactly why it is there. It exists so that those people who live in states like Arizona, Alabama, Maine, take your pick don't find ourselves with the same laws that don't fit our states like they do in say, California, or Texas, etc. One more thing of note here, with no Senate, that would mark a shift away from the current form of Govt. we enjoy now and move towards a " majority rules" Govt. so I thought it worth reminding everyone of something.

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... John Adam's

Who's talking about getting rid of the senate.

Repealing the 17th does not do that.

The 17th didn't ratify until 1913 (from memory).

The senate has existed from 1787 on........

 

[Listening]

It did not keep senators out of the political process. In fact that is the reason the states so stupidly turned over their watchdogs at the federal level to the people.

The 17th removed a huge structural component of the U.S. Constitution. The house was to dwell on what the people wanted, but the senate was there to make sure the fed didn't try to give them what it was not empowered to give them....thus looking out for states powers as described in the 10th amendment.

I say we repeal the stupid thing and get back (yep go back, get back, return, turn back the clock) to the day when states could tailor things to the way they wanted them.

Romneycare for Mass....no problem. Have at it Mass.

Don't want it in AZ or KS. Don't have to have it.

It's a great country.

Yeah..like that time some of the country thought you could own human beings..and others didn't.

Great stuff..

Strawman.....

The 13th amendment took care of that.

However, I am all for repealing and rewriting the 14th to get rid of selective incorporation.

Honestly, do you even think ?

 

[Listening]

I love how rightingnuts are whining about the house that's keeping the nutbars in the House under control. If it was reversed and the House was dem, you'd be saying that only the senate should exist.

The pretend constitutionalists hate the constitution. It's so funny.

Once again, Shillian you show you are full of crapp.

The explanation has already been given and the senate is necessary to protect the states from people like Obama.

The whole basis for the bicameral congress is spelled out in the Federalist papers and the key difference in the house and senate was the result of some brilliant thinking.

Take your smart pills or get a new prescription.

 

[rightwinger]

I love how rightingnuts are whining about the house that's keeping the nutbars in the House under control. If it was reversed and the House was dem, you'd be saying that only the senate should exist.

The pretend constitutionalists hate the constitution. It's so funny.

Once again, Shillian you show you are full of crapp.

The explanation has already been given and the senate is necessary to protect the states from people like Obama.

The whole basis for the bicameral congress is spelled out in the Federalist papers and the key difference in the house and senate was the result of some brilliant thinking.

Take your smart pills or get a new prescription.

The American people would never tolerate giving up their right to elect Senators.......go back to smoking your bong

 

[Navy1960]

Hey good idea, get rid of the Senate and then what would you do when you find yourselves at the whim of say, California, New York, etc. ? and you just happen to say live in Wyoming? Well the answer is tough, as the house being the only body that matters and as it represents the "people" and the vast majority of those people are are in a small number of states, then it passes that the legislation that will pass will represent that. Theres a reason for the Senate, now while it at times seems to be slow and in disagreement with the House, that is exactly why it is there. It exists so that those people who live in states like Arizona, Alabama, Maine, take your pick don't find ourselves with the same laws that don't fit our states like they do in say, California, or Texas, etc. One more thing of note here, with no Senate, that would mark a shift away from the current form of Govt. we enjoy now and move towards a " majority rules" Govt. so I thought it worth reminding everyone of something.

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... John Adam's

Who's talking about getting rid of the senate.

Repealing the 17th does not do that.

The 17th didn't ratify until 1913 (from memory).

The senate has existed from 1787 on........

Reading some of the commentary in the thread, and was responding to it, I'm aware the 17th Amendment established the direct election of Senators as well as addressed the issue of appointments. First in order to repeal the 17th you and I both know that would require a repeal amendment which then would require 2/3rd's of the states to ratify it, which would never happen in this case because the debate here is to relinquish a voters ability to select their own Senator or have someone else do it for them. In that case, your going to have a long uphill climb to ever have that come to pass. If the Senate is the issue with some, perhaps the best place to start would be to actually vote for Senators who are willing to pass rules in the Senate that would streamline its procedure. Frankly, other than for say a Supreme Court Justice, or perhaps a budget in my humble opinion, I find it frustrating beyond measure that a minority of Senators can hold the majority hostage even if that majority is 1 vote. Doesn't matter what party holds the Senate.

 

[BluePhantom]

Get rid of the Senate, altogether.

Really..why is it needed?

Come on Sallow, you know precisely why it's needed. Remember...balance between the large states and the small states. The Senate is where Rhode Island can avoid getting trampled by New York. I can think of a lot of states that would have a very strong opinion about getting rid of the Senate. In addition to RI there's Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed.

We shouldn’t – the reason is crystal clear: the problem is voters who refuse to get involved at the local level, who encourage partisanism, and don’t hold Senators accountable on election day.

Get rid of the Senate, altogether.

Really..why is it needed?

If the voters compelled the Senate to operate as intended, to be a neutral, non-partisan body to act as a check on the ‘irresponsible passions of the people,’ then this wouldn’t be an issue in the first place.

The Senate is crippled as a consequence of the partisanism, anathema to its original intent, regardless the majority party.

 

[whitehall]

I love how rightingnuts are whining about the house that's keeping the nutbars in the House under control. If it was reversed and the House was dem, you'd be saying that only the senate should exist.

The pretend constitutionalists hate the constitution. It's so funny.

FDR tried to stack the supreme court one time but other than that I don't recall either party ever suggesting that we change the Constitution so that voters have less power. That's a figment of the over-heated liberal imagination brought on by a socialist leaning administration..

 

[Listening]

Hey good idea, get rid of the Senate and then what would you do when you find yourselves at the whim of say, California, New York, etc. ? and you just happen to say live in Wyoming? Well the answer is tough, as the house being the only body that matters and as it represents the "people" and the vast majority of those people are are in a small number of states, then it passes that the legislation that will pass will represent that. Theres a reason for the Senate, now while it at times seems to be slow and in disagreement with the House, that is exactly why it is there. It exists so that those people who live in states like Arizona, Alabama, Maine, take your pick don't find ourselves with the same laws that don't fit our states like they do in say, California, or Texas, etc. One more thing of note here, with no Senate, that would mark a shift away from the current form of Govt. we enjoy now and move towards a " majority rules" Govt. so I thought it worth reminding everyone of something.

If a majority are capable of preferring their own private interest, or that of their families, counties, and party, to that of the nation collectively, some provision must be made in the constitution, in favor of justice, to compel all to respect the common right, the public good, the universal law, in preference to all private and partial considerations... And that the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of history... To remedy the dangers attendant upon the arbitrary use of power, checks, however multiplied, will scarcely avail without an explicit admission some limitation of the right of the majority to excercise sovereign authority over the individual citizen... In popular governments [democracies], minorities [individuals] constantly run much greater risk of suffering from arbitrary power than in absolute monarchies... John Adam's

Who's talking about getting rid of the senate.

Repealing the 17th does not do that.

The 17th didn't ratify until 1913 (from memory).

The senate has existed from 1787 on........

Reading some of the commentary in the thread, and was responding to it, I'm aware the 17th Amendment established the direct election of Senators as well as addressed the issue of appointments. First in order to repeal the 17th you and I both know that would require a repeal amendment which then would require 2/3rd's of the states to ratify it, which would never happen in this case because the debate here is to relinquish a voters ability to select their own Senator or have someone else do it for them. In that case, your going to have a long uphill climb to ever have that come to pass. If the Senate is the issue with some, perhaps the best place to start would be to actually vote for Senators who are willing to pass rules in the Senate that would streamline its procedure. Frankly, other than for say a Supreme Court Justice, or perhaps a budget in my humble opinion, I find it frustrating beyond measure that a minority of Senators can hold the majority hostage even if that majority is 1 vote. Doesn't matter what party holds the Senate.

For some time, I have been in favor of states holding inquiries and commissions in D.C. to essentially take on the funtion of the senate. The state legislature would send people to D.C. to get involved in these investigations. Then the state could go after the morons in congress who don't tow the line.

Of course it would be partisan....but it would be a start.

Actually, it would be a mess....but it would get the single cloak and dagger crapp out in the open.

 

[American Horse]

The 17th Amendment has had some really bad results over the years. I tallied the number of years US Senators served during the 100 years prior to the 17th and the 97 years after the 17th (of the 13 original states) and found that they serve almost exactly twice as long since 1913 than they did before.

Prior to the passage state legislatures could provide that their US Senator was more closely aligned to the political majority of the state, and therefore was actually much more responsive to the state's political consensus and 'current' needs.

Our own state has had Senator Lugar in office since he first ran in 1976.
He accomplished all that I voted for him for; which at the time was promotion of small business. He has voted 80% plus in favor of small business. Lugar hasn't lived in the state for 35 years, and doesn't even hold an address here. He's been claiming the residence he was at when he first ran, but thats been sold and occupied by others now for 35 years.

His opponent in the current race, is keeping that issue alive by challenging Lugar’s voting at a precinct in which he has no residence. Exposing that is being called dirty politics. So Lugar's running once again, for a 7th term, and has become a kind of "statesman" of the Senate. That's all fine, for him, but we need a change.

His opponent, Richard Mourdoc took the side of bondholders (bonds held by firemen, police, teachers, state employees), their position as first in line as lien holders, and brought it to trial in their defense. That was an aggressive position to take, and he did it well. The best Lugar can do is argue that Mourdoc missed public meetings on which his office held a pro-forma position 66 percent of the time; but of course Mourdoc sent his assistants or representatives to all those public meetings.

The 17th amendment has proven to protect incumbents in so many ways. It can never be rolled back, and we can never expect Senators to vote against their own incumbency.

The Senate still has an essential purpose; to slow the progress of bad ideas coming out of the house, and to vote as a caucus of the states in instances of “advice and consent” to the president. But now the Senate is made up of little more than super-representatives with all the same demands made on it as house members are subject to, with the only real difference being that their term of 6 years alternating in 3-different classes versus 2 years provides for a slow-down mechanism in times of volatile political change that the house is so subject to.

 

[Dante]

MuadDib is USMB's latest, biggest, blowhard

A lot of us wonder today why Congress is FUBARed. The answer is simple. One house of the US Congress no longer functions the way it was designed by the Founder and Framers: the US Senate.

According to Article 1 Section 3, Clause 1:

...

It functions as intended. Simpletons like you mistake process of elections for governing.

If you want I will write a letter in defense of your right to a refund for whatever education the state defrauded you out of when they gave you toilet paper saying you were educated properly.

:coo:
dD

 

[Dante]

Listening was in the running for USMB's latest, biggest, blowhard, but came in second to MuadDib

Who's talking about getting rid of the senate.

Repealing the 17th does not do that.

The 17th didn't ratify until 1913 (from memory).

The senate has existed from 1787 on........

Reading some of the commentary in the thread, and was responding to it, I'm aware the 17th Amendment established the direct election of Senators as well as addressed the issue of appointments. First in order to repeal the 17th you and I both know that would require a repeal amendment which then would require 2/3rd's of the states to ratify it, which would never happen in this case because the debate here is to relinquish a voters ability to select their own Senator or have someone else do it for them. In that case, your going to have a long uphill climb to ever have that come to pass. If the Senate is the issue with some, perhaps the best place to start would be to actually vote for Senators who are willing to pass rules in the Senate that would streamline its procedure. Frankly, other than for say a Supreme Court Justice, or perhaps a budget in my humble opinion, I find it frustrating beyond measure that a minority of Senators can hold the majority hostage even if that majority is 1 vote. Doesn't matter what party holds the Senate.

For some time, I have been in favor of states holding inquiries and commissions in D.C. to essentially take on the funtion of the senate. The state legislature would send people to D.C. to get involved in these investigations. Then the state could go after the morons in congress who don't tow the line.

Of course it would be partisan....but it would be a start.

Actually, it would be a mess....but it would get the single cloak and dagger crapp out in the open.

 

[The T]

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

Agreed.

Agreed...and add the 16th in the package.

 

[The T]

Get rid of the Senate, altogether.

Really..why is it needed?

Come on Sallow, you know precisely why it's needed. Remember...balance between the large states and the small states. The Senate is where Rhode Island can avoid getting trampled by New York. I can think of a lot of states that would have a very strong opinion about getting rid of the Senate. In addition to RI there's Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc

And the reason for the Electoral College.

I'm sure the left would like to see that repealed.

 

[Dante]

Get rid of the Senate, altogether.

Really..why is it needed?

Come on Sallow, you know precisely why it's needed. Remember...balance between the large states and the small states. The Senate is where Rhode Island can avoid getting trampled by New York. I can think of a lot of states that would have a very strong opinion about getting rid of the Senate. In addition to RI there's Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Vermont, Connecticut, etc, etc, etc

And the reason for the Electoral College.

I'm sure the left would like to see that repealed.

for all of you newcomers to USMB ----- T is here = alert!

 

[ABikerSailor]

Watch out when people suggest that you give up your right to vote and support a less messy form or government that works smoother without your input. I think the Germans tried it back in the 30's.

They already have. Remember MI appointing city managers who are able to override the local government and fire officials, sell assets and other things, all without a vote from the people?

And that is happening in GOP controlled states.

 

[rightwinger]

The 17th Amendment has had some really bad results over the years. I tallied the number of years US Senators served during the 100 years prior to the 17th and the 97 years after the 17th (of the 13 original states) and found that they serve almost exactly twice as long since 1913 than they did before.

Prior to the passage state legislatures could provide that their US Senator was more closely aligned to the political majority of the state, and therefore was actually much more responsive to the state's political consensus and 'current' needs.

Our own state has had Senator Lugar in office since he first ran in 1976.
He accomplished all that I voted for him for; which at the time was promotion of small business. He has voted 80% plus in favor of small business. Lugar hasn't lived in the state for 35 years, and doesn't even hold an address here. He's been claiming the residence he was at when he first ran, but thats been sold and occupied by others now for 35 years.

His opponent in the current race, is keeping that issue alive by challenging Lugar’s voting at a precinct in which he has no residence. Exposing that is being called dirty politics. So Lugar's running once again, for a 7th term, and has become a kind of "statesman" of the Senate. That's all fine, for him, but we need a change.

His opponent, Richard Mourdoc took the side of bondholders (bonds held by firemen, police, teachers, state employees), their position as first in line as lien holders, and brought it to trial in their defense. That was an aggressive position to take, and he did it well. The best Lugar can do is argue that Mourdoc missed public meetings on which his office held a pro-forma position 66 percent of the time; but of course Mourdoc sent his assistants or representatives to all those public meetings.

The 17th amendment has proven to protect incumbents in so many ways. It can never be rolled back, and we can never expect Senators to vote against their own incumbency.

The Senate still has an essential purpose; to slow the progress of bad ideas coming out of the house, and to vote as a caucus of the states in instances of “advice and consent” to the president. But now the Senate is made up of little more than super-representatives with all the same demands made on it as house members are subject to, with the only real difference being that their term of 6 years alternating in 3-different classes versus 2 years provides for a slow-down mechanism in times of volatile political change that the house is so subject to.

Interesting....did you consider that Americans live 15 years longer than in 1913 as contributing to Senators serving longer?

How do state legislators ensure that Senators are more closely aligned with the will of the people than the actual voters of the state?

People want to elect their own Senators......why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Navy1960]

One other thing of note on the Senate over the years. After the 17th Amendment, the elected members of that body are a direct result of the voters who put them there , so it can be said that the actions of various Senators be they Democrat or Republican or whatever can only be changed by those that put them there. If we the voters choose over and over again to put the same people in office only because we have an affinity for a party and do not bother to look at the actions of those who are supposed to represent us, then when those Senators choose to do things over and over again that displease us don't be surprised. The best way, to change the Senate is in the voting booth, and once people begin to do this then perhaps that body well better represent the people that send them there, rather than K Street, Wall Street, or whatever Street , other than Main Street.