Should the U.S. Senate be abolished?

[Sidestreamer]

I don't get this. I thought conservatives were against the strengthening of government, and yet I see conservatives in this thread suggesting we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and let state legislators elect the senate. Isn't that giving more power to government officials at the expense of the general public?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't get this. I thought conservatives were against the strengthening of government, and yet I see conservatives in this thread suggesting we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and let state legislators elect the senate. Isn't that giving more power to government officials at the expense of the general public?

It's taking power away from the special interests and restoring some semblance of federalism that has been lost over the years. Though I'd imagine there are many conservatives who wouldn't agree with repealing the 17th amendment.

 

[Sidestreamer]

I don't get this. I thought conservatives were against the strengthening of government, and yet I see conservatives in this thread suggesting we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and let state legislators elect the senate. Isn't that giving more power to government officials at the expense of the general public?

It's taking power away from the special interests and restoring some semblance of federalism that has been lost over the years. Though I'd imagine there are many conservatives who wouldn't agree with repealing the 17th amendment.

It wouldn't get rid of special interests by any means; instead it would just encourage lobbyists to spend more time in the state capitals so they can convince state representatives to vote their plants into the senate. And those senators will not be answerable to the public but to the influenced state reps. That seems more like the starting of a corporate oligarchy to me.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't get this. I thought conservatives were against the strengthening of government, and yet I see conservatives in this thread suggesting we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and let state legislators elect the senate. Isn't that giving more power to government officials at the expense of the general public?

It's taking power away from the special interests and restoring some semblance of federalism that has been lost over the years. Though I'd imagine there are many conservatives who wouldn't agree with repealing the 17th amendment.

It wouldn't get rid of special interests by any means; instead it would just encourage lobbyists to spend more time in the state capitals so they can convince state representatives to vote their plants into the senate. And those senators will not be answerable to the public but to the influenced state reps. That seems more like the starting of a corporate oligarchy to me.

which would require a hell of a lot more work

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't get this. I thought conservatives were against the strengthening of government, and yet I see conservatives in this thread suggesting we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and let state legislators elect the senate. Isn't that giving more power to government officials at the expense of the general public?

It's taking power away from the special interests and restoring some semblance of federalism that has been lost over the years. Though I'd imagine there are many conservatives who wouldn't agree with repealing the 17th amendment.

It wouldn't get rid of special interests by any means; instead it would just encourage lobbyists to spend more time in the state capitals so they can convince state representatives to vote their plants into the senate. And those senators will not be answerable to the public but to the influenced state reps. That seems more like the starting of a corporate oligarchy to me.

Well like I said earlier, it's easier to effect change at the state level than the federal level. So if you felt your state reps were under the influence of special interests then you'd have an easier time voting them out.

 

[Contumacious]

I don't get this. I thought conservatives were against the strengthening of government, and yet I see conservatives in this thread suggesting we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and let state legislators elect the senate. Isn't that giving more power to government officials at the expense of the general public?

As I showed earlier the 17th Amendment was never ratified, so it is an unconstitutional law,

"The Seventeenth Amendment was one of the last nails to be pounded into the coffin of federalism in America. The citizens of the states, through their state legislators, could no longer place any roadblocks whatsoever in the way of federal power. The Sixteenth Amendment, which enacted the income tax in the same year, implicitly assumed that the federal government lays claim to all income, and that citizens would be allowed to keep whatever their rulers in Washington, D.C. decided they could keep by setting the tax rates. From that point on, the states were only mere appendages or franchises of the central government.

The federal government finally became a pure monopoly and citizen sovereignty became a dead letter. Further arming itself with the powers of legal counterfeiting (the Fed) in the same year, the federal government could ignore the wishes of great majority of the citizens with reckless and disastrous abandon, as it did with its entry into World War I just a few years later.

If Americans ever again become interested in living in a free society, one of their first orders of business should be the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment."

 

[garyd]

So POlk according to you there is no tyrrany whatever involved in laws against Mescegenation, and Jim crow and a whole host of other laws that were imposed against minorities by majorities? You'd have no problems if the Majority of us decided to pass a law under which uber left idiots like you should be locked up and the key thown away?

 

[Oddball]

I don't get this. I thought conservatives were against the strengthening of government, and yet I see conservatives in this thread suggesting we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and let state legislators elect the senate. Isn't that giving more power to government officials at the expense of the general public?

It's taking power away from the special interests and restoring some semblance of federalism that has been lost over the years. Though I'd imagine there are many conservatives who wouldn't agree with repealing the 17th amendment.

It wouldn't get rid of special interests by any means; instead it would just encourage lobbyists to spend more time in the state capitals so they can convince state representatives to vote their plants into the senate. And those senators will not be answerable to the public but to the influenced state reps. That seems more like the starting of a corporate oligarchy to me.

Going about that on a state-by-state basis would be one helluva lot more expensive and call for way more glad handers than the current system, where they're all centralized in one place.

In fact, the likelihood that those lobbyists would be working in favor of state business interests, against the overreaching aims of the federal congress, are rather high.

 

[garyd]

And you could solve 80% of the lobbyist problem by getting the Feds as uninvolved in the economy as possible. If the Feds aren't picking economic winners and losers the Corporations have no reason to come calling in the first place.

 

[Intense]

And you could solve 80% of the lobbyist problem by getting the Feds as uninvolved in the economy as possible. If the Feds aren't picking economic winners and losers the Corporations have no reason to come calling in the first place.

Corporations do not have exclusive rights to lobby. Get Real. You do know that there was a time when it was illegal to lobby. We could always go back that way.

 

[garyd]

That sir is why I said 80%.

 

[Oddball]

And you could solve 80% of the lobbyist problem by getting the Feds as uninvolved in the economy as possible. If the Feds aren't picking economic winners and losers the Corporations have no reason to come calling in the first place.

Well, there's that improbable possibility, too.

What do you think the odds are against the politicians in the District of Criminals voting that much power away from themselves are?

 

[Intense]

That sir is why I said 80%.

At this point I think that The Unions are a bigger Threat with Their More Equal than Me or You Philosophy, and Their hold on the Fed.

 

[Polk]

no, they are NOT
they are definitive and static

They are now, but that's not really the point. Why are the Dakotas two separate states? Ditto Idaho and Montana? There isn't a real reason.

Your JUMP from 'Not Static Figures' to the reason why TWO Dakotas, and Idaho/Montana?

Is there a North Idaho? South Idaho? North Montana/South Montana?

Fascinating piece of shit BRAIN you work with. I fail to see the correlation as to the TOPIC.

Are you always this erratic?

I didn't jump. The lines were drawn in an arbitrary fashion. That they could have been drawn even more arbitrarily is irrelevant.

 

[Polk]

no they don't, MORON
they have equal voice in the SENATE
the way it was intended as a check and balance

No, they don't have an equal voice. 30,000,000 people voting for two seats is a clearly a smaller voice than 500,000 people voting for two seats. You could argue that denying them an equal voice is preferable for other reasons, but to claim they have an equal voice is asinine.

 

[Polk]

they are NOT arbitrary

Of course they are.

Did you ever take an American history class and actually pass it? They are not "arbitrary lines". Before a state joined as a state, it was an independent territory -essentially a nation unto itself and the lines were drawn by the people living in that territory who declared themselves to be a nation unto themselves, living under their own laws. All that happened BEFORE they ended up joining the Union under one flag.

The status of territories strengthens my point. The area of territories was highly fluid. Take the following:
Part of North Carolina is split off to create the Southwest Territory.
Kentucky is created from a part of Virginia.
Part of Georgia is split off to make the Mississippi Territory.

And that's just up to 1800.

Joining the Union was an agreement between the territory applying for statehood and federal government under our Constitution -where the state agreed to forfeit very few, very specific powers to federal government in exchange for representation in federal government that would provide a common defense against enemies and establish treaties with foreign countries that applied to all states -and not much else. They did NOT agree to forfeit all powers to federal government and cannot be forced to do so. Our Constitution actually allows states to revoke their membership in the Union but the Civil War resulted in a federal government that will resort to violence to prevent it now -although the "right" of each state to secede still exists as part of our Constitution. States were unwilling to join without the ability of the people of that state to later change their mind and secede from the Union -which is why it was included. Our Constitution states that any power not specifically given to federal government belongs to either state government or to the people.

There is no Constitutional right to exit the Union. Upon entry into the Union, states surrender their sovereignty to the federal government and from that point forward operate inside subject to a series of rules and regulations.

Each state joined the Union as the FULL equal of all the other states. And never agreed to become subsumed to the most densely populated states or to be ruled over by the most populated and highly urbanized areas of the nation and just abolish all state lines. It would mean doing away with an entire level of government -one that is far more responsive to the people than federal government is -because it is CLOSER to the people. Government that is closer to the people is more responsive -which is why anyone with brain would NOT want federal government in charge of any aspect of their life. The majority of states in this country are not densely populated urbanized states and when added together represent the majority of the population -and they don't want Californians for example, who screwed up their own state big time, doing the same to their states. If you are awaiting the day all state lines are abolished and Presidents are directly elected by the people instead of the states, it will be a long wait. The President is the sole elected office who is elected by the states and not directly elected by the people. Because he is President of the United STATES, not the people.

If the people of this country get to the point where they haven't a clue why we have the system of government we do and didn't take the time to learn what has made this nation unique among all others or why we have THE longest lasting continuous form of government in the world even though among the youngest of nations -then do they still deserve to keep it instead of letting it turn into just one more dim copy of an historically proven failure of a system?

That's a strawman. No one is arguing for getting rid of local government. What is being said is that the construction of these local governments should have not been in such a way as to skewed representation on the national level toward a narrow set of interests.

 

[Polk]

I don't get this. I thought conservatives were against the strengthening of government, and yet I see conservatives in this thread suggesting we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and let state legislators elect the senate. Isn't that giving more power to government officials at the expense of the general public?

It's taking power away from the special interests and restoring some semblance of federalism that has been lost over the years. Though I'd imagine there are many conservatives who wouldn't agree with repealing the 17th amendment.

Yes, because historically reducing the size of the electorate has resulted in a representation of broader interests. O wait, no, that's not true.

 

[Polk]

So POlk according to you there is no tyrrany whatever involved in laws against Mescegenation, and Jim crow and a whole host of other laws that were imposed against minorities by majorities? You'd have no problems if the Majority of us decided to pass a law under which uber left idiots like you should be locked up and the key thown away?

And now you've gone and shot yourself in the foot. The "anti-tyranny" measure you've been arguing in favor of in this thread was the body that did the most to extend the life of the very measures you're describing (and I would also describe) as tyrannical.

 

[DiveCon]

no they don't, MORON
they have equal voice in the SENATE
the way it was intended as a check and balance

No, they don't have an equal voice. 30,000,000 people voting for two seats is a clearly a smaller voice than 500,000 people voting for two seats. You could argue that denying them an equal voice is preferable for other reasons, but to claim they have an equal voice is asinine.

they have equal voice as a STATE


OMG how can a college kid be so dumb

 

[Polk]

no they don't, MORON
they have equal voice in the SENATE
the way it was intended as a check and balance

No, they don't have an equal voice. 30,000,000 people voting for two seats is a clearly a smaller voice than 500,000 people voting for two seats. You could argue that denying them an equal voice is preferable for other reasons, but to claim they have an equal voice is asinine.

they have equal voice as a STATE
OMG how can a college kid be so dumb

That's twisting the word "equal" into something meaningless. It would be like if I got to cast three ballots and you got to cast one, and then I claimed it was perfectly fair because each of my ballots counts the same as yours.