Utah looking to repeal 17th amendment

[Two Thumbs]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Utah's state senate is one of the most corrupt in the US, barring Louisiana and New Jersey.

The state GOP is afraid Lee will get beaten this fall.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Utah's state senate is one of the most corrupt in the US, barring Louisiana and New Jersey.

The state GOP is afraid Lee will get beaten this fall.

link

 

[OKTexas]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

I agree it won't end corruption, but I would favor repealing the 17th only for the fact that many of these unfunded mandates and other programs like ObamaCare passed by the federal government would have never stood a chance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Utah's state senate is one of the most corrupt in the US, barring Louisiana and New Jersey.

The state GOP is afraid Lee will get beaten this fall.

link

Not necessary. Everyone from Utah understands the Zion mafia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.

Nope, it would be much easier to bribe them in the State. That is why the amendment passed.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.

how do you figure?

seems to me it would add another, bribe-able, middleman.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

I agree it won't end corruption, but I would favor repealing the 17th only for the fact that many of these unfunded mandates and other programs like ObamaCare passed by the federal government would have never stood a chance.

how do you figure?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Utah's state senate is one of the most corrupt in the US, barring Louisiana and New Jersey.

The state GOP is afraid Lee will get beaten this fall.

link

Not necessary. Everyone from Utah understands the Zion mafia.

Ranking The States From Most To Least Corrupt

7th from the bottom

NY is so corrupt I had to dig just to find a list

 

[whitehall]

Maybe Utah should send Alvin Jackson to a remedial Constitution 101 class. Congress can't repeal a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[OKTexas]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.

Nope, it would be much easier to bribe them in the State. That is why the amendment passed.

Link?

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.

Nope, it would be much easier to bribe them in the State. That is why the amendment passed.

would it still be easier now?

considering it was 100 years ago, and most biz was local, even if it was large.

Would the mega corps of today be able to out bribe the locals wants and needs? or would it be to obvious at that level?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Maybe Utah should send Alvin Jackson to a remedial Constitution 101 class. Congress can't repeal a Constitutional Amendment.

we can clearly pass laws that infringe upon it.

 

[OKTexas]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.

how do you figure?

seems to me it would add another, bribe-able, middleman.

If a senator isn't attending to the State interests the legislature can replace him at the end of his term, there's no reason to have a reelection war chest, just doing a good job for the State would determine if they are returned to DC. And when it comes to bribes, 60 senators would be much easier to bribe than the majority of 50 State legislatures.

 

[OKTexas]

Maybe Utah should send Alvin Jackson to a remedial Constitution 101 class. Congress can't repeal a Constitutional Amendment.

But they can propose another amendment to do so.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.

how do you figure?

seems to me it would add another, bribe-able, middleman.

If a senator isn't attending to the State interests the legislature can replace him at the end of his term, there's no reason to have a reelection war chest, just doing a good job for the State would determine if they are returned to DC. And when it comes to bribes, 60 senators would be much easier to bribe than the majority of 50 State legislatures.

Wal-mart, Verizon, Sony, AT&T are multi billion dollar companies.

how much harder do you think it would be to bribe 50 locals that make less than the 60 senators?

keep in mind how easily people fall for the spin

 

[Two Thumbs]

the 17th Amendment is an amendment and not a law.

there must have been a good reason to go that far and does that reason exist today.

 

[OKTexas]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.

how do you figure?

seems to me it would add another, bribe-able, middleman.

If a senator isn't attending to the State interests the legislature can replace him at the end of his term, there's no reason to have a reelection war chest, just doing a good job for the State would determine if they are returned to DC. And when it comes to bribes, 60 senators would be much easier to bribe than the majority of 50 State legislatures.

Wal-mart, Verizon, Sony, AT&T are multi billion dollar companies.

how much harder do you think it would be to bribe 50 locals that make less than the 60 senators?

keep in mind how easily people fall for the spin

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I said the majority of 50 State legislatures, that would be several hundred individuals. Also legislators would be less likely to fall for the spin than the individual voters. As it is now the incumbent has a 80+% chance of reelection. If they're not looking out for the State the legislature would be in the best position to know that, they have to deal with all the federal BS.

 

[Two Thumbs]

The Utah Senate Asks Congress to Repeal the 17th Amendment


“The framers of the Constitution created the United States Senate to protect the rights of individual states and safeguard minority opinion in a system of government designed to give greater power to the national government. They modeled the Senate on governors’ councils of the colonial era and on the state senates that had evolved since independence. The framers intended the Senate to be an independent body of responsible citizens who would share power with the president and the House of Representatives. James Madison, paraphrasing Edmund Randolph, explained in his notes that the Senate’s role was “first to protect the people against their rulers [and] secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.”



The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.[1]

17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Direct Election of U.S. Senators. Americans did not directly vote for senators for the first 125 years of the Federal Government. The Constitution, as it was adopted in 1788, stated that senators would be elected by state legislatures.




I can understand why they would want that, but the idea that it would end corruption is silly, you're just spreading it around.

Actually it would bring the loyalty of senators back to the State instead of large donors, the Senate was intended to be the States house, the House of Reps was intended to be the peoples house. That all went to shit with the 17th.

how do you figure?

seems to me it would add another, bribe-able, middleman.

If a senator isn't attending to the State interests the legislature can replace him at the end of his term, there's no reason to have a reelection war chest, just doing a good job for the State would determine if they are returned to DC. And when it comes to bribes, 60 senators would be much easier to bribe than the majority of 50 State legislatures.

Wal-mart, Verizon, Sony, AT&T are multi billion dollar companies.

how much harder do you think it would be to bribe 50 locals that make less than the 60 senators?

keep in mind how easily people fall for the spin

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I said the majority of 50 State legislatures, that would be several hundred individuals. Also legislators would be less likely to fall for the spin than the individual voters. As it is now the incumbent has a 80+% chance of reelection. If they're not looking out for the State the legislature would be in the best position to know that, they have to deal with all the federal BS.

you lack communication skills, so that's on you.

also you have a hard time with reality

megacorps are in all 50 states and around the world, making it easy for them to bribe the locals.

and by spin, I meant spin coming from the politicians, that's where spin comes from.