Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If a state makes a mistake, then a small portion of the country suffers and they change it.

Not necessarily.

Texas made the mistake of criminalizing homosexuality in violation of the 14th Amendment, for example; the people of Texas refused to correct that mistake. In fact, they refused all the way to the Supreme Court, who corrected the mistake for them, in accordance with the Constitution.

The problem with reactionary extremists is they whine about the ‘tyranny’ of the Federal government yet say noting about the tyranny of state and local governments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement. Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.

Henry Clay wasn't a constitutional framer, nincompoop.

The only thing breathtaking is your ham-handed attempt to move the goalposts.

But Clay was appointed by the Kentucky state legislature, which is the point, not where you are moving the goal posts. Your ignorance and lack of education concering the American story boggles the minds of those who understand it. But, then again, you are a typically illiterate wannabee so-called libertarian. Clay would label you the fool that you are clearly demonstrated that you are to the entire board.

 

[freedombecki]

The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement. Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.

Henry Clay wasn't a constitutional framer, nincompoop.

The only thing breathtaking is your ham-handed attempt to move the goalposts.

But Clay was appointed by the Kentucky state legislature, which is the point, not where you are moving the goal posts. Your ignorance and lack of education concering the American story boggles the minds of those who understand it. But, then again, you are a typically illiterate wannabee so-called libertarian. Clay would label you the fool that you are clearly demonstrated that you are to the entire board.

Clay's birth occurred in 1777. The Constitution was ratified by states in the years 1787-88. I don't think Secretary of State Clay was one of the founders. In fact, when he did come to power, he overthrew many founding principles with taxation schemes and things, several decades later.

Furthermore, the 17th Amendment was passed in 1913, 61 years after Henry Clay died.

 

[Dante]

The odd one better go study Henry Clay's American Plan, pushed by almost every Whig Senator, to get the feds to underwrite internal improvement. Odd's lack of comprehension re: the American narrative is breath taking.

Henry Clay wasn't a constitutional framer, nincompoop.

The only thing breathtaking is your ham-handed attempt to move the goalposts.

But Clay was appointed by the Kentucky state legislature, which is the point, not where you are moving the goal posts. Your ignorance and lack of education concering the American story boggles the minds of those who understand it. But, then again, you are a typically illiterate wannabee so-called libertarian. Clay would label you the fool that you are clearly demonstrated that you are to the entire board.

the thing The Right Wing Lunacy Posts and the Libertarian Randian Nitwits have in common is their complete misreading of others posts.

It's not always spin or deflection. most times it's just idiocy

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one gives a flip that Clay was not a Founder. He was, however, operating under the system of the original Constitution until the 17th amendment was ratified. Clay is proof positive that the Senate was not a curb on the House. To suggest that is pure revelation of our American narrative. Study his American Plan and see who supported the use of federal funds for internal improvements.

 

[Dante]

American System (economic plan) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[JakeStarkey]

Dante is assuming that the far right gives a crap about learning the actual American narrative. Me thinketh he assumeth too mucheth.

 

[Dante]

No one gives a flip that Clay was not a Founder. He was, however, operating under the system of the original Constitution until the 17th amendment was ratified. Clay is proof positive that the Senate was not a curb on the House. To suggest that is pure revelation of our American narrative. Study his American Plan and see who supported the use of federal funds for internal improvements.

Funny, I do not agree with your arguments about Senate, but agree with your arguments about Clay.

Was the Senate supposed to be a curb on the House? And is not always getting their way make the Senate irrelevant to original purpose? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one gives a flip that Clay was not a Founder. He was, however, operating under the system of the original Constitution until the 17th amendment was ratified. Clay is proof positive that the Senate was not a curb on the House. To suggest that is pure revelation of our American narrative. Study his American Plan and see who supported the use of federal funds for internal improvements.

Funny, I do not agree with your arguments about Senate, but agree with your arguments about Clay.

Was the Senate supposed to be a curb on the House? And is not always getting their way make the Senate irrelevant to original purpose? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.

Minds of good will and balance can agree to disagree. Nothing is perfect. Other than Odd. Ask him.

 

[Dante]

Dante is assuming that the far right gives a crap about learning the actual American narrative. Me thinketh he assumeth too mucheth.

actually you give them to much credit. you assume they know what you know and understand it too. I think many fools know what I know. Where we part is understanding. Most people imagine things, confusing thoughts with understanding. There is an easier way to describe this, but why bother? Most people here lack keen critical thinking skills.

you create an opponent worthy of battle in your mind when you misunderstand the right wing lunatics.

I am not so kind or needy. I know Oddball Dude and his ilk are unworthy of serious argument

 

[Dante]

No one gives a flip that Clay was not a Founder. He was, however, operating under the system of the original Constitution until the 17th amendment was ratified. Clay is proof positive that the Senate was not a curb on the House. To suggest that is pure revelation of our American narrative. Study his American Plan and see who supported the use of federal funds for internal improvements.

Funny, I do not agree with your arguments about Senate, but agree with your arguments about Clay.

Was the Senate supposed to be a curb on the House? And is not always getting their way make the Senate irrelevant to original purpose? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.

Minds of good will and balance can agree to disagree. Nothing is perfect. Other than Odd. Ask him.

OMFG! You have compromised yourself in their eyes. You've treated an opposing view as worthy of respect. Shame!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the 17th Amendment can’t be repealed in good faith, as the motive of supporters of such an action is purely partisan.

 

[Toro]

Democracy schlemocracy.

The American republic was constructed to protect against the rule of the mob....All that a popularly elected Senate does is give us bicameral mobocracy.

And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.

And a popularly elected Senate is merely an extension of the party man mob rule exercised in the HorR....The suckage of bicameral mobocracy is hardly any kind of equitable trade.

Add to that the fact that a popularly elected Senate seat has very nearly become a lifetime appointment.

Moreover, the parliamentary systems in Canada and the UK aren't comparable to the much more balanced small "r" republican model, as originally set forth in America.

I've never understood this argument from people who claim to be libertarians or conservatives. According to the political right, government is a total fuck-up. It can't do anything right. We should leave it to the market. People should have as much say over their daily lives and choices and the government should have less because people know more about their wants and needs than the government. But according to those who say we should appoint Senators, giving more power to government officials and taking away the individual's choice is a good thing. Appointing Senators means government officials dictate to you how you are going to be governed and takes away the choice of the individual. IOW, Big Gubmint knows best on how everyone should be governed than the individual. It's a big contradiction.

Another argument is that the Founding Fathers knew what was best when they appointed Senators because it would lead to mob rule. If they knew best, they also knew best that the document they had written wasn't infallible. They understood that times change. That's why they put in a mechanism to amend the Constitution. They knew best that even if the principals they espoused were timeless, the law and how people were governed was not. The law and how individuals are governed changes throughout time. The constitution was written 225 years ago. It was not written exactly for 2012, 225 years later, anymore than it was written exactly for 1562, 225 years prior. So even though the principals may be timeless, the law is not.

 

[Dante]

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that the 17th Amendment can’t be repealed in good faith, as the motive of supporters of such an action is purely partisan.

good faith? In the democratic process? you truly are a political innocent. you get a gold star here.

 

[Toro]

Like fucking hell they are.

Senators are now mere national party man hack tools just like House Representatives...Like I said, bicameral mobocracy.

And appointed Senators are state party hack tools.......I'd prefer the people have the right to vote them out of office rather than leave it to state political hacks

Except that they don't get voted out of office....They're basically lifetime offices, unless you get caught with the proverbial live boy or dead woman.

With state appointment, you'd get defacto term limits based upon the changing nature of who controls the states.

But I guess you liberoidals are perfectly fine with being lorded over by a completely detached an unaccountable elite few, just as long as they carry that (D) by their names.

The average tenure for a US Senator is 11-13 years. Google "average duration of a senator" and it comes up.

So they aren't lifetime offices.

 

[Toro]

Why Repeal 17th Amendment?

How many times have you had your U.S. Senator approach you and discuss impending legislation with you? Even though you voted for them, they probably did not contact you once. But how many times do you suppose they contacted Enron about impending legislation. Enron and other corporations financed their campaigns, to the tune of millions of dollars, to get you to vote these senators into office. You can safely bet that your U.S. Senators discuss impending legislation with these corporations on a routine basis.

How often do U.S. Senators discuss federal affairs with your state legislator? I am still looking for a state legislator who has been contacted by their U.S. Senator regarding federal affairs.

Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Senators discussed federal affairs with their state legislators on a regular basis. At THAT time U.S. Senators did not have to raise millions of dollars to run for office. They were not beholden to the large corporations.

There is no way our U.S. Senators are going to personally discuss federal affairs with, and handle the input from, 900,000 people. The only choice we have before us is to have them discuss our federal affairs with the State Legislatures as opposed to the large corporations. As originally included in the U.S. Constitution, the people of the states will continue to enjoy the right to vote for their U.S. Representatives.

I am including the final version of my presentation which I gave today before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee.

One reason why we have the 17th amendment is because Senator offices were bought and sold like property. There were several investigations into corruption on Senate seats in the 19th century. All appointing Senators would do is flow the corruption from the national level to the state level.

FTR, the largest contributor to Jeb Bush's gubernatorial campaigns was Enron. Those contributions to Bush and the state Republican party would have skyrocketed exponentially had the state appointed Senators.

 

[Oddball]

And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britain. It sucks.

And a popularly elected Senate is merely an extension of the party man mob rule exercised in the HorR....The suckage of bicameral mobocracy is hardly any kind of equitable trade.

Add to that the fact that a popularly elected Senate seat has very nearly become a lifetime appointment.

Moreover, the parliamentary systems in Canada and the UK aren't comparable to the much more balanced small "r" republican model, as originally set forth in America.

I've never understood this argument from people who claim to be libertarians or conservatives. According to the political right, government is a total fuck-up. It can't do anything right. We should leave it to the market. People should have as much say over their daily lives and choices and the government should have less because people know more about their wants and needs than the government. But according to those who say we should appoint Senators, giving more power to government officials and taking away the individual's choice is a good thing. Appointing Senators means government officials dictate to you how you are going to be governed and takes away the choice of the individual. IOW, Big Gubmint knows best on how everyone should be governed than the individual. It's a big contradiction.

Another argument is that the Founding Fathers knew what was best when they appointed Senators because it would lead to mob rule. If they knew best, they also knew best that the document they had written wasn't infallible. They understood that times change. That's why they put in a mechanism to amend the Constitution. They knew best that even if the principals they espoused were timeless, the law and how people were governed was not. The law and how individuals are governed changes throughout time. The constitution was written 225 years ago. It was not written exactly for 2012, 225 years later, anymore than it was written exactly for 1562, 225 years prior. So even though the principals may be timeless, the law is not.

You get your choice for Senators at the state level, when you vote for your state legislatures and Governor....Therefore, when you have the natural turnover which occurs within the state houses, then your Senators also tend to turn over, rather than them being a reflection of how your state operated several decades ago....Then you don't have a basically imperial Senate, populated with fossils like Dole, McCain, Kennedy, Byrd, Lugar, ad nauseum, hanging around like herpes.

Claiming libertarians are saying that the Constitution as originally set forth was perfect is a red herring....Nobody is saying that....That said, the 17th Amendment, coupled with the 16th Amendment and the creation of the Fed -all coincidentally(?) in the same year no less- all removed three important constraints on centralizing power in a faraway capital, as the framers clearly sought to avoid, in one fell swoop.

And, as I pointed out earlier, federal spending and bureaucracy has swelled in the last century, from the scant couple of percent it was for the first 150 years of America's existence, to a level approaching 1/4 of all GDP...If you want to claim that this is all coincidental, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

 

[Dante]

And an appointed Senate gives us an aristocracy that looks after the interests of the aristocrats. Canada has an appointed Senate. So does Britor. It sucks.

And a popularly elected Senate is merely an extension of the party man mob rule exercised in the HorR....The suckage of bicameral mobocracy is hardly any kind of equitable trade.

Add to that the fact that a popularly elected Senate seat has very nearly become a lifetime appointment.

Moreover, the parliamentary systems in Canada and the UK aren't comparable to the much more balanced small "r" republican model, as originally set forth in America.

I've never understood this argument from people who claim to be libertarians or conservatives. According to the political right, government is a total fuck-up. It can't do anything right. We should leave it to the market. People should have as much say over their daily lives and choices and the government should have less because people know more about their wants and needs than the government. But according to those who say we should appoint Senators, giving more power to government officials and taking away the individual's choice is a good thing. Appointing Senators means government officials dictate to you how you are going to be governed and takes away the choice of the individual. IOW, Big Gubmint knows best on how everyone should be governed than the individual. It's a big contradiction.

Another argument is that the Founding Fathers knew what was best when they appointed Senators because it would lead to mob rule. If they knew best, they also knew best that the document they had written wasn't infallible. They understood that times change. That's why they put in a mechanism to amend the Constitution. They knew best that even if the principals they espoused were timeless, the law and how people were governed was not. The law and how individuals are governed changes throughout time. The constitution was written 225 years ago. It was not written exactly for 2012, 225 years later, anymore than it was written exactly for 1562, 225 years prior. So even though the principals may be timeless, the law is not.

The law is timeless. That is why we repeal laws instead of choosing to ignore them, because somebody can always bring up an old law to use.

You are spot on about the founders and framers being aware of exactly what it was and wasn't that they were forming. They gave us the amendment process - a very difficult process.

You are correct in your observations of libertarian/right disconnects in their ideological arguments versus their politics or reality.

pretty good post

 

[Oddball]

Why Repeal 17th Amendment?

How many times have you had your U.S. Senator approach you and discuss impending legislation with you? Even though you voted for them, they probably did not contact you once. But how many times do you suppose they contacted Enron about impending legislation. Enron and other corporations financed their campaigns, to the tune of millions of dollars, to get you to vote these senators into office. You can safely bet that your U.S. Senators discuss impending legislation with these corporations on a routine basis.

How often do U.S. Senators discuss federal affairs with your state legislator? I am still looking for a state legislator who has been contacted by their U.S. Senator regarding federal affairs.

Prior to the enactment of the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the U.S. Senators discussed federal affairs with their state legislators on a regular basis. At THAT time U.S. Senators did not have to raise millions of dollars to run for office. They were not beholden to the large corporations.

There is no way our U.S. Senators are going to personally discuss federal affairs with, and handle the input from, 900,000 people. The only choice we have before us is to have them discuss our federal affairs with the State Legislatures as opposed to the large corporations. As originally included in the U.S. Constitution, the people of the states will continue to enjoy the right to vote for their U.S. Representatives.

I am including the final version of my presentation which I gave today before the Montana Senate Judiciary Committee.

One reason why we have the 17th amendment is because Senator offices were bought and sold like property. There were several investigations into corruption on Senate seats in the 19th century. All appointing Senators would do is flow the corruption from the national level to the state level.

FTR, the largest contributor to Jeb Bush's gubernatorial campaigns was Enron. Those contributions to Bush and the state Republican party would have skyrocketed exponentially had the state appointed Senators.

Now they're basically appointments for life...Some progress.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Funny, I do not agree with your arguments about Senate, but agree with your arguments about Clay.

Was the Senate supposed to be a curb on the House? And is not always getting their way make the Senate irrelevant to original purpose? Nothing is perfect. Nothing.

Minds of good will and balance can agree to disagree. Nothing is perfect. Other than Odd. Ask him.

OMFG! You have compromised yourself in their eyes. You've treated an opposing view as worthy of respect. Shame!!!

What "they" think about respect does not bear consideration. They are weirdos.