repealing the 17th admendment

[blu]

Can someone please explain why so many people advocate for this? I don't quite understand why people don't want to be able to vote for their own officials

 

[Oddball]

Because the Senate was supposed to be the place where the state legislatures had a say in spending policy, since the states were the ones who were charged with collecting apportioned federal taxes.

Since the passage of the 17th Amendment, no state has had any say in federal spending policy.

 

[Truthmatters]

senators and reps are from the states so yes they do have a say.

 

[Oddball]

Is there no end to your historical ignorance and buffoonery?

 

[Truthmatters]

How is having elected officials pick them rather than the peopel directly electing them less represntation of the state?

 

[Oddball]

Because the Senators could be recalled at will by the state legislatures if they became creatures of DC.

Now they're merely popularly elected congressweasels with tenure.

 

[slackjawed]

When state assemblies elected federal senators they were usually people that had experience in their own state government. The House of Representatives was supposed to be the people's house, the senate was supposed to represent the states. The 17th amendment takes powers from the states and gives them to the federal government.
Some things we have seen more of since the ratification of the 17th amendment;
1-more and bigger unfunded mandates from the federal government to the states
2- senators that represent states that they either lived in a very short time or not at all
3- more career senators at the federal level
4- the same level of cronyism and lunacy in the senate as in the house.

 

[Truthmatters]

what a fucking circus that would be.

You would have the peoples business subject to bickering in one states senate.

 

[Oddball]

Oh, like it's not a fucking circus now.

 

[Truthmatters]

Before it was ratified by all the states some states withheld electing senators for political reasons. One senator seat sat empty for 4 whole years.

That is why all the states were willing to change it.

 

[Oddball]

How is a seat sitting empty any worse than having a Senator that constantly votes "present"?

 

[Truthmatters]

How is removing the voters choice from federal elections going to make the Feds more responsive to the people?

Take a poll and see how Americans feel about the idea of letting their state knuckleheads PICK their fed reps.

Like I said before so much of the libertarian ideas are fantasy.

 

[slackjawed]

Historically, some states did have elections, the election results were simply 'passed on" by their state legislators. TN and Illinois were two of those, that's why the Lincoln Douglas debate of 1858 was important. Most state's assemblies elected their senators. Some states, wyoming being one of them, had their senators appointed by the sitting governor.
All the states held the authority to recall senators by a vote in their respective assemblies, except wyoming. Wyoming's gov could recall a senator at any time he wanted.
That recall ability that was lost by the states has been cited as the biggest loss of both states rights and individual liberties in our history by several historians and philosophers. It grew out of a populist progressive movement that openly admitted at the time that they were campaigning to get it ratified, that it was in direct opposition to the constitution and the intentions of the founding framers of the republic. The progressive movement of the day saw the 17th amendment as a step towards pure democracy. That's what they sold during the campaign to ratify it.
Pure democracy was seen by the founding fathers as "tyranny over the minority by the majority". The manner in which the senators were elected before the 17th amendment was one of those checks.

 

[Oddball]

It grew out of a populist progressive movement that openly admitted at the time that they were campaigning to get it ratified, that it was in direct opposition to the constitution and the intentions of the founding framers of the republic. The progressive movement of the day saw the 17th amendment as a step towards pure democracy. That's what they sold during the campaign to ratify it.
Pure democracy was seen by the founding fathers as "tyranny over the minority by the majority". The manner in which the senators were elected before the 17th amendment was one of those checks.

1913 was quite probably the worst year for the republic in history.

 

[Truthmatters]

I would only support a direct ballot to remove a sitting senator.

How would you like a Blogoavich retaliating on your senator for a diversion tactic.

 

[JWBooth]

Is there no end to your historical ignorance and buffoonery?

it would seem not

 

[Oddball]

How is removing the voters choice from federal elections going to make the Feds more responsive to the people?

Take a poll and see how Americans feel about the idea of letting their state knuckleheads PICK their fed reps.

Like I said before so much of the libertarian ideas are fantasy.

It's not about taking polls, simpleton.

Truly, you're historical naïveté knows no bounds.

BTW..."Libertarian fantasy" was the way the nation was operated for 150 years.

 

[Truthmatters]

Tell just how you would go about repealling the 17th amendment without the will of the people?

 

[slackjawed]

I would only support a direct ballot to remove a sitting senator.

How would you like a Blogoavich retaliating on your senator for a diversion tactic.

Just because that would be your tactic, should you be in office, doesn't mean that everyone would act that way.

 

[slackjawed]

Tell just how you would go about repealling the 17th amendment without the will of the people?

You can't, that's why there a lot of us telling people what we have lost by ratifying it and hopefully one day it will have the support to be repealed.
Sort of like that other unpopular "popular progressive" constitutional amendment, the 18th, was repealed.