CDZ Repeal The 17th

[DarkFury]

"Something was stolen some time back by "progressive" democrats"

Another ridiculous lie from the right, inconsistent with 'clean debate.'

And whatever the merits of repealing the 17th Amendment in the context of a republican form of government and original intent, such a proposal is made by the partisan right in bad faith.

Republicans know that they'll likely continue to control the majority of state houses for the foreseeable future, and with such control of a majority of state legislatures, so too will they retain control of the Senate.

And why not?
Florida has a republican legislature and a republican governor.
Does it make sense to have a republican AND democratic senator?

There are not just two choices. There is a whole continuum in between. How can the same people vote for a democrat and republican ? Don't know.

If, in the eyes of conservatives, the senate were doing it's job...it would matter a whole lot less.

It IS one of the ways central government has kept out say libertarians and independents.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Something was stolen some time back by "progressive" democrats"

Another ridiculous lie from the right, inconsistent with 'clean debate.'

And whatever the merits of repealing the 17th Amendment in the context of a republican form of government and original intent, such a proposal is made by the partisan right in bad faith.

Republicans know that they'll likely continue to control the majority of state houses for the foreseeable future, and with such control of a majority of state legislatures, so too will they retain control of the Senate.

And why not?
Florida has a republican legislature and a republican governor.
Does it make sense to have a republican AND democratic senator?

Sure. It's the will of the people.

How can someone complain about special interests (or do you think they don't get involved in senatorial elections ?) and then say this.

Which is it ? You can't have it both ways.

The special interest power will be even greater if the state legislatures elect the Senators.

 

[hortysir]

That makes little sense.

If the people of the state elect their senator, he reflects the will of the people.

That is bottom up.

Read the act BEFORE it was repealed/stolen.
1, You had personal rights which YOU were expected to defend.
2, You had state rights which were to defend YOU.

Deflection does not change that you are wrong: the 17th is popular and from the bottom up. It reflects the people.

Then let the "people" decide.
Put it on the table

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Something was stolen some time back by "progressive" democrats"

Another ridiculous lie from the right, inconsistent with 'clean debate.'

And whatever the merits of repealing the 17th Amendment in the context of a republican form of government and original intent, such a proposal is made by the partisan right in bad faith.

Republicans know that they'll likely continue to control the majority of state houses for the foreseeable future, and with such control of a majority of state legislatures, so too will they retain control of the Senate.

And why not?
Florida has a republican legislature and a republican governor.
Does it make sense to have a republican AND democratic senator?

Sure. It's the will of the people.

No. It's the will of Miami/Dade and Hillsborough/Pinellas residents

The majority is the will of the people. And the people can decided to revoke the amendment by the amendment process.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That makes little sense.

If the people of the state elect their senator, he reflects the will of the people.

That is bottom up.

The people already voted to have their state legislature speak for them, as the COTUS was originally designed

Until the people said, "huh, that's fucked up, we will elect them".

Uh, and how did those people make that decision.

If memory serves me....it's the state legislators that vote to pass the amendment once it comes out of the senate.

Same corrupt people you are so worried about.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That makes little sense.

If the people of the state elect their senator, he reflects the will of the people.

That is bottom up.

Read the act BEFORE it was repealed/stolen.
1, You had personal rights which YOU were expected to defend.
2, You had state rights which were to defend YOU.

Deflection does not change that you are wrong: the 17th is popular and from the bottom up. It reflects the people.

Then let the "people" decide.
Put it on the table

There is a provision for a popular amendment process. It has never been utilized.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then use the popular amendment process, or the state allows a referundum. Still from the bottom up.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That makes little sense.

If the people of the state elect their senator, he reflects the will of the people.

That is bottom up.

Read the act BEFORE it was repealed/stolen.
1, You had personal rights which YOU were expected to defend.
2, You had state rights which were to defend YOU.

Those so-called states rights are nothing of the sort.

The conservative view of the constitution is that states would be the ultimate authority. In truth, if it were not for incorporation, states could severely restrict your right to bear arms (if you follow the conservative view to it's logical limits).

The same garbage we deal with now...we'd deal with then. There is no difference (as there isn't now). It's just that you could live in a state that is more to your liking...now we make everybody everywhere do the same thing.

 

[hortysir]

That makes little sense.

If the people of the state elect their senator, he reflects the will of the people.

That is bottom up.

Read the act BEFORE it was repealed/stolen.
1, You had personal rights which YOU were expected to defend.
2, You had state rights which were to defend YOU.

Deflection does not change that you are wrong: the 17th is popular and from the bottom up. It reflects the people.

Then let the "people" decide.
Put it on the table

There is a provision for a popular amendment process. It has never been utilized.

Here in Florida any constitutional amendment goes on the ballot and has to be a2/3 majority

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Then use the popular amendment process, or the state allows a referundum. Still from the bottom up.

Thanks for admitting your earlier mistatement.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That makes little sense.

If the people of the state elect their senator, he reflects the will of the people.

That is bottom up.

Read the act BEFORE it was repealed/stolen.
1, You had personal rights which YOU were expected to defend.
2, You had state rights which were to defend YOU.

Deflection does not change that you are wrong: the 17th is popular and from the bottom up. It reflects the people.

Then let the "people" decide.
Put it on the table

There is a provision for a popular amendment process. It has never been utilized.

Here in Florida any constitutional amendment goes on the ballot and has to be a2/3 majority

Are you talking about amending the state or federal constitution ?

 

[hortysir]

Read the act BEFORE it was repealed/stolen.
1, You had personal rights which YOU were expected to defend.
2, You had state rights which were to defend YOU.

Deflection does not change that you are wrong: the 17th is popular and from the bottom up. It reflects the people.

Then let the "people" decide.
Put it on the table

There is a provision for a popular amendment process. It has never been utilized.

Here in Florida any constitutional amendment goes on the ballot and has to be a2/3 majority

Are you talking about amending the state or federal constitution ?

State

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Deflection does not change that you are wrong: the 17th is popular and from the bottom up. It reflects the people.

Then let the "people" decide.
Put it on the table

There is a provision for a popular amendment process. It has never been utilized.

Here in Florida any constitutional amendment goes on the ballot and has to be a2/3 majority

Are you talking about amending the state or federal constitution ?

State

I was making reference to (from memory) a popular amendment procedure that can be utilized to bypass that corrupt cesspool we now call the U.S. Congress.

In this, 2/3 of the states pass something (not sure what) calling for a national convention that would allow for consideration of amendments independent of congress. I don't know that a state has to have 2/3 votes to be a part of this.

 

[DarkFury]

Deflection does not change that you are wrong: the 17th is popular and from the bottom up. It reflects the people.

Then let the "people" decide.
Put it on the table

There is a provision for a popular amendment process. It has never been utilized.

Here in Florida any constitutional amendment goes on the ballot and has to be a2/3 majority

Are you talking about amending the state or federal constitution ?

State

The MOST important thing I see for the state to RE-enact is the power to nullify. That strips federal government and then THEY have to do what we say.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"Something was stolen some time back by "progressive" democrats"

Another ridiculous lie from the right, inconsistent with 'clean debate.'

And whatever the merits of repealing the 17th Amendment in the context of a republican form of government and original intent, such a proposal is made by the partisan right in bad faith.

Republicans know that they'll likely continue to control the majority of state houses for the foreseeable future, and with such control of a majority of state legislatures, so too will they retain control of the Senate.

And why not?
Florida has a republican legislature and a republican governor.
Does it make sense to have a republican AND democratic senator?

There are not just two choices. There is a whole continuum in between. How can the same people vote for a democrat and republican ? Don't know.

If, in the eyes of conservatives, the senate were doing it's job...it would matter a whole lot less.

It IS one of the ways central government has kept out say libertarians and independents.

It is why both conservatives and liberals should consider returning to the original system. There is just way to much power focused in the hands of a few individuals who are highly corrupted by it.

Harry Reid is a classic example.

 

[DarkFury]

Then let the "people" decide.
Put it on the table

There is a provision for a popular amendment process. It has never been utilized.

Here in Florida any constitutional amendment goes on the ballot and has to be a2/3 majority

Are you talking about amending the state or federal constitution ?

State

I was making reference to (from memory) a popular amendment procedure that can be utilized to bypass that corrupt cesspool we now call the U.S. Congress.

In this, 2/3 of the states pass something (not sure what) calling for a national convention that would allow for consideration of amendments independent of congress. I don't know that a state has to have 2/3 votes to be a part of this.

They tried this year but were 2 or 3 Govs short. 2016 we can finish that shortage and we NEED to.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Then let the "people" decide.
Put it on the table

There is a provision for a popular amendment process. It has never been utilized.

Here in Florida any constitutional amendment goes on the ballot and has to be a2/3 majority

Are you talking about amending the state or federal constitution ?

State

The MOST important thing I see for the state to RE-enact is the power to nullify. That strips federal government and then THEY have to do what we say.

There was never, to the best of my knowledge, any power to nullify. Despite the claim of 10th amendment supporters....it does not exist.

It would be stupid to give states that right....we'd be back to the Articles of Confederation.

The big push would be to pre-empt all the federal legislation that the right does not like (except that they support a lot of it anyway and keep electing the same morons back to congress).

 

[Sun Devil 92]

There is a provision for a popular amendment process. It has never been utilized.

Here in Florida any constitutional amendment goes on the ballot and has to be a2/3 majority

Are you talking about amending the state or federal constitution ?

State

I was making reference to (from memory) a popular amendment procedure that can be utilized to bypass that corrupt cesspool we now call the U.S. Congress.

In this, 2/3 of the states pass something (not sure what) calling for a national convention that would allow for consideration of amendments independent of congress. I don't know that a state has to have 2/3 votes to be a part of this.

They tried this year but were 2 or 3 Govs short. 2016 we can finish that shortage and we NEED to.

That's the right of any group that controls state houses.

I just hope nobody thinks that somehow the issues like our federal deficit will suddenly go away just because we pass that kind of amendment.

It's going to take a lot of time and a lot of fresh blood to get that kind of thing under control.

 

[paperview]

Then let the "people" decide.
Put it on the table

There is a provision for a popular amendment process. It has never been utilized.

Here in Florida any constitutional amendment goes on the ballot and has to be a2/3 majority

Are you talking about amending the state or federal constitution ?

State

The MOST important thing I see for the state to RE-enact is the power to nullify. .

They never had that power.

That strips federal government and then THEY have to do what we say.

See: Supremacy Clause.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Then let the "people" decide.
Put it on the table

There is a provision for a popular amendment process. It has never been utilized.

Here in Florida any constitutional amendment goes on the ballot and has to be a2/3 majority

Are you talking about amending the state or federal constitution ?

State

The MOST important thing I see for the state to RE-enact is the power to nullify. That strips federal government and then THEY have to do what we say.

O.K. So how do you feel about what the Texas state legislature just did regarding freedom to report on them ?

Doesn't do much for your case...does it ?