Should The Senate Go Back To Being Elected By The State Legislatures?

[BenNatuf]

Removing the voice of the states from our federal government was the worst mistake we ever made. Demogoguery will never allow it to be undone; however, we probobly could add a third Senator for each state to be appointed by the legislatures and that would help to alleviate the error.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Removing the voice of the states from our federal government was the worst mistake we ever made.

-Slavery
-Near holocaust of the Indian tribes
-Occupation of the Phillipines
-Electing Woodrow Wilson
-The Spanish Flu Pandemic

Yeah, not the worst mistake we ever made. Not even close.

I do think its about time for another Constitutional Convention to address some of the issues that have arisen. I could see revisiting the role of States in the overall picture as one of those issues. I've long been an advocate of block granting many of the subsidies down to the State level to allow them the power to administrate those programs as they see fit.

 

[bripat9643]

This just gets more hilarious with every post. Some puppet legislature setup by Lincoln and his cronies is the legal legislature of Virginia? Do you really expect anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature to swallow that? When did the entire people of virginia have an opportunity to vote on the members of this legislature? How could it possibly be legitimate if not all the citizens had an opportunity to vote on it?

Furthermore, the Constitution defines treason this way:


Note that it says "them" [the states]. Treason consists of waging war against the states - any state, not against the federal government. If anyone was guilty of treason, it was Lincoln and the federal government. Lincoln invaded Virginia. The later did not invade any Union state until after hostilities had commenced.

Since the states are not referenced in the clause, the clause cannot be referring to the states. That reading ignores basic English grammar.

ROFL! The clause most certainly does refer to the States. What part of "the United States" does not refer to the states? Especially considering the fact that the federal government didn't exist until the document was ratified? The following clause says that treason shall consist of making war against "them." If "The United States" doesn't refer to the states collectively, then the word "them" is nonsensical. Only someone who is illiterate would swallow your understanding of this clause.

I understand thAT liberal English isn't like ordinary English. It doesn't admit any interpretations that question the authority of the almighty federal government. That's why we have the Liberal Dictionary. What could be more absurd than a liberal telling anyone their understanding of English is incorrect?

And I'm sorry that you don't understand why the legislature in Richmond is no longer a legal body at that point during which it's engaged in active insurrection.

You certainly haven't explained it. One thing is certain, the puppet legislature Lincoln installed was not the legitimate legislature of Virginia. How could any legislature be legitimate unless all the legal voters had an opportunity to vote on it? the body in Richmond was put there by a vote of all the legal electors in Virginia. Lincoln's puppet legislature wasn't.

Furthermore, secession is not "insurrection." You're begging the question by assuming the conclusion that you are attempting to prove. First you have to prove the Constitution doesn't allow secession. Once have done that, you can go on to claim that the government in Richmond wasn't the lawful government of Virginia.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The founding fathers didn't want women, blacks or poor people voting either. This isn't the 18th century FFS.

I find it absolutely stunning that the right would even debate restricting voting. When people around the world think of America, they think freedom, which is synonymous with democracy. They don't think "Ruled by landholders." That is what people are trying to escape when they come here. There is no freedom greater than choosing those who rule over you.

How is restoring the State's checks and balances restricting the vote? No one is suggesting that women or anyone else not vote. We are suggesting that the States once again have a check in congress as they should.

I'd go in the exact opposite direction. Why should there be a Senate in the first place? What makes arbitrary lines on map so sacrosanct?

The people who live in between those lines and make them communities, separate and distinct, with their own goals and concerns different and apart from those of other communities, and the right to determine their own futures.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Dont try to justify a wrong with what you beleive to be another wrong. Its a principle that is extreamly conveiniant with stawmwnr red herring arguements like yours. The Idea that since this was done here it should be done elsewhere doesent hold up in any arguement. I hope you havent widdled down to this.

I assume that your answer - which you are trying assiduously to avoid - is "Yes, we stole the natives' land." I was hoping you would come out and actually say it so I could rep you for logical consistency. But you're trying really, really hard not to because it's problematic to your implicit defense of American mythology.

BTW are all women created equal? Are women equal to men?

A point that is based of justifying a wrong on whats perceived to be another wrong is mute. I did not want to get in to a debate of American history because it would have been a change of subject and bad for both of us. Byt the principle, no matter what the answer you wanted, is as true as the wind driven snow. Facts are stubborn things. I will not adhear toward your fallacies and false misdirections of descussions for some pritty colors at the top of my posts.

Just FYI: the point is "moot", not mute. And the phrase is "pure as the wind-driven snow", not "true", so it's probably not quite appropriate for the use you wanted.

Sorry, but mangled sayings are like sand in a bathing suit to me.

 

[Cecilie1200]

States have no authority to secede; even the Confederacy recognized that. The only real check on federal power is an informed, vigilant electorate of good moral substance holding its elected leaders accountable for their fidelity to the Constitution.

Where does it say - in the Constitution, the state Constitutions, or any law for that matter - that states don't have the right to secede? Hell, two states - Arizona and Texas - have the right to secede written into THEIR Constitutions, and refused to join the US unless that right was confirmed. Furthermore, my reading of the Constitution turns up the 10th Amendment, which says:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Since the Constitution says nothing about preventing states from seceding, or delegating to the US any power regarding secession either way, it seems to me that that power is, then, reserved to the States and the people (people can, of course, remove themselves from the United States at will).

It didn't need to say so because it's pretty obvious from the history and structure of the document. Starting with preamble's "form a more perfect Union", it's clear the intended structure of government was one of exactly that, government. Not a "league", or "alliance", or "confederation", but "Union". This "more perfect Union" was designed to replace the Articles of Confederation which begins in the opening clause with a statement of "perpetual Union".

Also, there are clauses of the Constitution that simply would not function if states have the right to secede. It would not be possible "guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government", for example.

It sure the hell DOES need to say so. Maybe YOU are willing to live under laws that are vague and unwritten and invented as you go along, but I'm not and I'm damned sure our founding generation wasn't. If it isn't clearly stated, on paper and duly ratified, then it by God isn't the law.

The rest of that is just crap that you've decided to read your own preferences into. Forming a government, whatever type, does not in any way require that no one can ever, ever change their mind and leave it. Nor does agreeing that all states in the Union will have a Republican form of Government require that all states that join must remain states forever. If Arizona secedes, does that somehow mean that the states in the Union don't have a Republican form of government? No, it just means Arizona isn't a state in the Union anymore.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln's biggest flaw was not executing Davis, Lee, and the other ringleaders for treason.

Lincoln, Sherman, Grant and Sheridan are all war criminals who deserved to be hanged. They are also traitors according to the Constitution.

 

[Cecilie1200]

California, for example, has no more right to secede from the United States than Orange County has to secede from California, or Los Angeles from Orange County, for that matter. Lincoln's views were in line with the Founders. James Madison, for example, spent the later part of his life repudiating the notion of sucession.

So West Virginia shouldn't be a state, because pieces of states have no right to secede? That's what West Virginia did, around the same time Lincoln decided he had the right to conquer territory and force it to be part of the US whether it wanted to or not: it seceded from Virginia and became its own state.

The legislature that voted for form the state of West Virginia was the legal legislature of Virginia.

According to whom? Themselves? The federal government they were agreeing with?

The legal legislature of Virginia - the REAL legal legislature, aka the representatives voted into office by the people - voted to secede from the Union. The losers of the vote, unwilling to accept the legally-expressed will of the legally-elected representatives of the people, declared themselves in charge and went off to form their own state . . . exactly the same action people on this board are now saying the states themselves cannot take regarding the nation.

If the legal legislature of the state of Arizona - not just a disgruntled faction who lost the vote and stormed off in a huff - voted to leave the United States, how is that any less valid and legal an action than the splinter legislature of Virginia deciding to leave and form West Virginia? By your argument, being the legal legislature of the state makes it valid, doesn't it?

 

[Polk]

How is restoring the State's checks and balances restricting the vote? No one is suggesting that women or anyone else not vote. We are suggesting that the States once again have a check in congress as they should.

I'd go in the exact opposite direction. Why should there be a Senate in the first place? What makes arbitrary lines on map so sacrosanct?

The people who live in between those lines and make them communities, separate and distinct, with their own goals and concerns different and apart from those of other communities, and the right to determine their own futures.

But that means the people are what's important, not the lines.

 

[Polk]

Lincoln's biggest flaw was not executing Davis, Lee, and the other ringleaders for treason.

Lincoln, Sherman, Grant and Sheridan are all war criminals who deserved to be hanged. They are also traitors according to the Constitution.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Sounds like what the rebels were doing, with their attacks on American forts and seeking the aid of foreign powers.

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln's biggest flaw was not executing Davis, Lee, and the other ringleaders for treason.

Lincoln, Sherman, Grant and Sheridan are all war criminals who deserved to be hanged. They are also traitors according to the Constitution.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Sounds like what the rebels were doing, with their attacks on American forts and seeking the aid of foreign powers.

Fort Sumter was part of South Carolina. The federal government was trespassing. Furthermore, it sent warships into S. Carolina waters to resupply the fort. That's an act of war.

Lincoln invaded the Confederate states and made war on them. That's treason according to the Constitution. Self defense is not treason, so your claim is utterly worthless.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Per Texas v. White when a state enters the Union it also enters into a contract with the other states and peoples of those states. Contracts are not to be violated or broken – and when they are there are consequences.

Texas v. White is horseshit. I've already shown that the decision is simply wrong. It's based on premises that are clearly not true. For example that Texas was a state at the time the decision was rendered. Texas was clearly not a state. It was conquered territory. It had no Senators or Congressmen, and it was ruled by the US military.

How would this be determined? By referendum? And what of those who didn’t vote to leave the Union? What of their rights? Will they be compelled to leave their state, homes, families, and jobs?

This issue was settled shortly before the Civil War. since when do libs give a damn about the rights of the minority? what about the rights of the people who voted against Obama?



ROFL! the constitution does not prohibit secession. If the minority has a right to be "protected" from secession, then it also had a right to be protected from ratification of the Constitution, which makes the document invalid. It also has a right to be protected from Oamacare, social security, Medicare, Medicare, welfare and every other outrage perpetrated by Congress.

Your idiocies are up to their usual puissance.

But if a state were to secede today who would stop them?

A state wouldn’t secede today, there’d be no point. And any perceived ‘advantage’ would be heavily outweighed by the many disadvantages.

You didn't answer the question. In typical fashion, you ran away.

So now we're saying that any law passed or election held that doesn't enjoy 100% support is invalid? That would be . . . every single law ever passed or election held in the history of the country.

 

[bripat9643]

I'd go in the exact opposite direction. Why should there be a Senate in the first place? What makes arbitrary lines on map so sacrosanct?

The people who live in between those lines and make them communities, separate and distinct, with their own goals and concerns different and apart from those of other communities, and the right to determine their own futures.

But that means the people are what's important, not the lines.

"Important" to whom? Your response is meaningless blather.

 

[bripat9643]

So now we're saying that any law passed or election held that doesn't enjoy 100% support is invalid? That would be . . . every single law ever passed or election held in the history of the country.

Yes, that's what he's saying, only he didn't realize he was saying that. Every time he puts forth an argument in defense of Lincoln's crimes, he only further incriminates him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can anyone who loves democracy want even more power removed from the people?

I don't love democracy, aka. mob rule, any more than our Founding Fathers did. The IQ of a mob is the IQ of its stupidest member, divided by the number of people in the mob. Not a good equation for an effective government.

 

[Polk]

The people who live in between those lines and make them communities, separate and distinct, with their own goals and concerns different and apart from those of other communities, and the right to determine their own futures.

But that means the people are what's important, not the lines.

"Important" to whom? Your response is meaningless blather.

My response makes perfect sense. I asked what makes states important, she replied with a statement about the people living in those states, to which I replied it's the people that are important, not the states.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd go in the exact opposite direction. Why should there be a Senate in the first place? What makes arbitrary lines on map so sacrosanct?

The people who live in between those lines and make them communities, separate and distinct, with their own goals and concerns different and apart from those of other communities, and the right to determine their own futures.

But that means the people are what's important, not the lines.

It must be a problem, reading only for what you want to see.

It means the people AND THE COMMUNITIES THEY CREATE are what's important.

 

[Contumacious]

Lincoln's biggest flaw was not executing Davis, Lee, and the other ringleaders for treason.

Lincoln, Sherman, Grant and Sheridan are all war criminals who deserved to be hanged. They are also traitors according to the Constitution.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Sounds like what the rebels were doing, with their attacks on American forts and seeking the aid of foreign powers.

Excuse me Vernon

But once South Carolina seceded from the union Fort Sumter became a South Carolina Fort , ie, it was not an "American Fort".

.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You apparently missed this part of the series in the above:

and the Laws of the United States

there I made it bigger for you. The Supremacy Clause is not just about 'treaties' and whatever you're blathering on about nonsensically.

The Supremacy Clause makes the Constitution the Supreme Law of the Land.

In the constitution, the term "the United States" does not refer to the federal government. It refers to the states collectively. The laws of the United states are the laws of all the states. If you don't believe it, then look at the clause about treason. It defines treason as making war against them [the states]. It does not mention the federal government.

You are wrong. Why can't a state ban all personal possession of firearms?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[I wouldn't make land ownership the test for voting. However, I think collecting a check from the government for any reason other than a sale of goods or services should bar you from voting.

Then what goods or services did you sell when the government gave you a check representing the tax credit you got just for having kids?

The only people who get a check for having kids are women collecting welfare.

Social security is a check from the government. A tax deduction is not a check from the government. It's a reduction in the amount the government extracts from your hide. a tax credit is just another form of tax deduction unless it reduces the amount you owe to less than zero.

Only gullible morons are buying the leftwing fiction that tax cuts are the same as benefits and subsidies.

If you get it and I don't, just because you have kids and I don't, that's you getting money from the government.

A tax deduction gets you a check from the government because the government is refunding a portion of YOUR SHARE of the tax bill.