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

[Sheldon]

Then why have a house and a senate? Sence their both elected by the people what is the difference between them? Election terms? Constitutional duties? That can easily be remedied by one body.

The upper chamber is still important. There's a reason people say the Senate is where bills go to die. Even with segmented direct elections, it's still the more deliberative body between the two and serves as a valuable check against the House's whims, and provides the opportunity for the parties to split power like we have now.

 

[Oddball]

Right. As if landholders aren't a venal group who will use legislative powers to bend laws to their interest.

At least they have some *ahem* skin in the game.

How do you expect those who have nothing to act, when voting to take from those who do?

 

[Oddball]

the less that is left in the hands of a state legislature, the better off we are.

state legislators are typically the most venal, corrupt, sleazy, one way assholes on the planet.

most of them would sell their mother's uterus for a buck and throw in the ovaries.

obama was a proud member of the IL state legislature, IIRC.

QED

Gray Davis was far more recall-able than has been anyone ever elected to federal office.

 

[del]

Red herring....A return to Senators appointed by the state legislatures and seated by the Governors would neither restrict voting, nor even deprive anyone of any vote.

Also, the framers were perfectly good with being governed by landholders....They were simply against being a landholder subject to membership in the Lucky Sperm Club.

BTW, we're not supposed to be "ruled over" by de jure government...They are supposed to be the servants and we the masters....There's a reason I use the term "gubmint".

And you'd use ******* GUbZmint if you appointed Senators. FFS we appoint Senators in Canada and it's a disaster. True, the system is different, but the idea that those appointed wouldn't be cronies who've donated a ton of money to the politicians is hilarious. I love how ambassadors are selected in this country BTW. Write big cheques and you can live in a comfy residence in Dublin on the taxpayers dime. As if it would be any different in the Senate.

The system is different, but somehow or another we'd end up with the same results?

we've already gotten the same results. why do you think the 17th amendment came into being?

rich guys buying seats in the senate.

like this one

William A. Clark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oddball]

Wiki?...Seriously?

Don't make me spell out the implications.

 

[Old Rocks]

The voters would never stand for not being able to elect their Senators

We have enough back room dealing thank-you

Nobody asked whether it was politically feasible. It probably isn't. Any more than property qualifications, which I also support.

And I reckon you support slavery and the 3/5ths provision, also.

 

[Old Rocks]

Exactly. Mob rul is exactly what the founders wanted to avoid by having the senate elected by the state legeslatures.

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.

Please show me where in the constitution that it mentions race or sex in regards to voting. Voting rights were subject to the descression of the states. Besids, your fictional strawman wont work here. Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And whats the point of having two popularly elected bodies? The point was so that both the state and the people can have a say in the federal government. But now, thanks mostly to the 17th Amendment, the 10th amendment is virtually void and the federal governement can tax the citizens of a state and use the peoples money to bribe legislative behavior that the state may deem not in its best interst. Obamacare is a perfect example.

Exactly, and that is what you assholes are shooting for, the disenfranchisement of all but the very moneyed class.

 

[Old Rocks]

No Representation without taxation. It's a good policy. People who have no stake in the government don't care what happens.

Everyone pays taxes.

Not everyone pays more in taxes than they receive in direct welfare. Which means they not only pay no taxes but they get money back. Yet they have the right to vote for more and at whose expense? A Conflict of interest?

Like some of the big corperations?

 

[Toro]

Red herring....A return to Senators appointed by the state legislatures and seated by the Governors would neither restrict voting, nor even deprive anyone of any vote.

Also, the framers were perfectly good with being governed by landholders....They were simply against being a landholder subject to membership in the Lucky Sperm Club.

BTW, we're not supposed to be "ruled over" by de jure government...They are supposed to be the servants and we the masters....There's a reason I use the term "gubmint".

And you'd use ******* GUbZmint if you appointed Senators. FFS we appoint Senators in Canada and it's a disaster. True, the system is different, but the idea that those appointed wouldn't be cronies who've donated a ton of money to the politicians is hilarious. I love how ambassadors are selected in this country BTW. Write big cheques and you can live in a comfy residence in Dublin on the taxpayers dime. As if it would be any different in the Senate.

The system is different, but somehow or another we'd end up with the same results?

We do you think it would be any better? You're always going on about how awful government is. What in God's name makes you think state politicians would be anything other than awful when picking Senators?

 

[del]

Wiki?...Seriously?

Don't make me spell out the implications.

you can google him if you wish, it's very well documented.

i'm sure it happened more than once and would happen again.

why else would the states have ratified the 17th if the population wasn't up in arms?

 

[Toro]

No Representation without taxation. It's a good policy. People who have no stake in the government don't care what happens.

Everyone pays taxes.

Not everyone pays more in taxes than they receive in direct welfare. Which means they not only pay no taxes but they get money back. Yet they have the right to vote for more and at whose expense? A Conflict of interest?

Let's apply the same standards to politicians voting for war. How about any politician voting for war has to send their kids abroad to fight on the front lines. And if they have no kids, they have to go themselves.

 

[Avatar4321]

The voters would never stand for not being able to elect their Senators

We have enough back room dealing thank-you

Nobody asked whether it was politically feasible. It probably isn't. Any more than property qualifications, which I also support.

And I reckon you support slavery and the 3/5ths provision, also.

Talk about a red herring. Is your ability to argue the point that pathetic?

 

[Publius1787]

It is a common consensus that a popularly elected Senate was a mistake? By whom? I've heard the exact opposite whenever I've heard scholars talking about it.

An appointed upper chamber occurs in the British Parliamentary system and it's a joke.

Right now there are 25 attourny generals sueing the federal government to get out from under the heavy thumb of Obamacare. Do you think that Obamacare would be possible if the Senate was appointed by those same states? And please show me where the constitution mentions race or gender in regards to voting.

Like I said, this isn't the 18th century anymore.

Yeah. Well in the absence of your argument I still want to know where the Constitution specifies race or gender in regards to voting.

 

[Publius1787]

Then why have a house and a senate? Sence their both elected by the people what is the difference between them? Election terms? Constitutional duties? That can easily be remedied by one body.

The upper chamber is still important. There's a reason people say the Senate is where bills go to die. Even with segmented direct elections, it's still the more deliberative body between the two and serves as a valuable check against the House's whims, and provides the opportunity for the parties to split power like we have now.

Valuable check against the house whims? There both elected by the same people. What about the states?

 

[Publius1787]

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.

Please show me where in the constitution that it mentions race or sex in regards to voting. Voting rights were subject to the descression of the states. Besids, your fictional strawman wont work here. Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And whats the point of having two popularly elected bodies? The point was so that both the state and the people can have a say in the federal government. But now, thanks mostly to the 17th Amendment, the 10th amendment is virtually void and the federal governement can tax the citizens of a state and use the peoples money to bribe legislative behavior that the state may deem not in its best interst. Obamacare is a perfect example.

Exactly, and that is what you assholes are shooting for, the disenfranchisement of all but the very moneyed class.

Oh? Explanation.

 

[Publius1787]

Everyone pays taxes.

Not everyone pays more in taxes than they receive in direct welfare. Which means they not only pay no taxes but they get money back. Yet they have the right to vote for more and at whose expense? A Conflict of interest?

Like some of the big corperations?

Attemptiong to correct a wrong with another wrong doesent score you a right. Back to the drawing board for you.

 

[Publius1787]

Everyone pays taxes.

Not everyone pays more in taxes than they receive in direct welfare. Which means they not only pay no taxes but they get money back. Yet they have the right to vote for more and at whose expense? A Conflict of interest?

Let's apply the same standards to politicians voting for war. How about any politician voting for war has to send their kids abroad to fight on the front lines. And if they have no kids, they have to go themselves.

Nah. Thats why people like me exist. Thats why we have a voulinteer military. And I dont want to have my life dependant on a liberal anti war hippy who would rather be smoking weed than looking after my back in a line company in Afghanistan.

 

[Toro]

Right now there are 25 attourny generals sueing the federal government to get out from under the heavy thumb of Obamacare. Do you think that Obamacare would be possible if the Senate was appointed by those same states? And please show me where the constitution mentions race or gender in regards to voting.

Like I said, this isn't the 18th century anymore.

Yeah. Well in the absence of your argument I still want to know where the Constitution specifies race or gender in regards to voting.

Or women, eh? It says "men." It says nothing about women. And yet we have the temerity to allow females to vote. It's been all downhill since.

 

[Toro]

Not everyone pays more in taxes than they receive in direct welfare. Which means they not only pay no taxes but they get money back. Yet they have the right to vote for more and at whose expense? A Conflict of interest?

Let's apply the same standards to politicians voting for war. How about any politician voting for war has to send their kids abroad to fight on the front lines. And if they have no kids, they have to go themselves.

Nah. Thats why people like me exist. Thats why we have a voulinteer military. And I dont want to have my life dependant on a liberal anti war hippy who would rather be smoking weed than looking after my back in a line company in Afghanistan.

Don't you think there is a conflict of interest in politicians voting for war if they have nothing personal on the line? It's my taxes going to fund a war I may or may not believe in. Why the heck should I be expected to fund a war in which some politician has nothing at stake?

 

[Publius1787]

Like I said, this isn't the 18th century anymore.

Yeah. Well in the absence of your argument I still want to know where the Constitution specifies race or gender in regards to voting.

Or women, eh? It says "men." It says nothing about women. And yet we have the temerity to allow females to vote. It's been all downhill since.

What article? What section?
I know you arent talking about the 14th Amendment are you? In that case it says "male" but that didnt come around until the constitution was around 100 years old. Once again, Show me where Race or Gender are mentioned in the Constitution for voting purposes. Especially for restricting the right to vote. Why am I having a constitutional descussion with a guy who knows absolutly nothing about the constitution? You hate the constitution and its authors so much that you would throw out such a slanderous and false alligation just like all the other liberals who want to dismiss the principles of liberty in the advocacy of "collective salvation", "social justice", "mob rule" , "aleinable (to distinguish from unaleinable) rights" and the magically ever changing without so much as an amendment "living constitution". Just like all liberals your argument relies on a false history that never existed and you made up to make the founders look bad to bolster a political point that doesent exist. Or perhaps your so ignorant of the constitution, OF WHICH YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NEVER READ, that you just didnt know. Either way if you dont know the damn Constitution of the United States then you need to find someone else to debate because you are seriously outclassed here. Even among bad spellers like myself.

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several
States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifi -
cations requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch
of the State Legislature."

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,
for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."