by Mortshnefran » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:42 pm
by Maurepas » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:48 pm
by Lunatic Goofballs » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:49 pm
by Atreath » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:50 pm
Maurepas wrote:While I wouldnt mind the Fed's power taken down a peg, this strikes me as not being the way to do it...
it would strip power from individual people and hand it to the State Governments, afterall, my state's governor is almost the polar opposite of my own political beliefs, yet at the present I have the ability to vote for a Senator that more clearly represents my beliefs...
without the 17th amendment, I would not have this power...
by Galloism » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:51 pm
Lunatic Goofballs wrote:I have no idea what you're talking about so here's a painting of Sarah Palin with pancakes on her head:
by UNIverseVERSE » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:51 pm
by Lunatic Goofballs » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:53 pm
Galloism wrote:Lunatic Goofballs wrote:Dammit LG. You've bested me again.
I shall return... I shall return. *throws down a smoke bomb, vanishes*
by Mortshnefran » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:53 pm
Maurepas wrote:While I wouldnt mind the Fed's power taken down a peg, this strikes me as not being the way to do it...
it would strip power from individual people and hand it to the State Governments, afterall, my state's governor is almost the polar opposite of my own political beliefs, yet at the present I have the ability to vote for a Senator that more clearly represents my beliefs...
without the 17th amendment, I would not have this power...
by Atreath » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:53 pm
by Khadgar » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:55 pm
by Grays Harbor » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:55 pm
by Maurepas » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:56 pm
Atreath wrote:Maurepas wrote:While I wouldnt mind the Fed's power taken down a peg, this strikes me as not being the way to do it...
it would strip power from individual people and hand it to the State Governments, afterall, my state's governor is almost the polar opposite of my own political beliefs, yet at the present I have the ability to vote for a Senator that more clearly represents my beliefs...
without the 17th amendment, I would not have this power...
That was why the founding fathers instituted the house of representatives. The house was to be the check and balance for the senate. The senate as it stands today is just a smaller, more powerful copy of the house. Thus making it an ultimately pointless institution.
by Newer Burmecia » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:56 pm
by Newer Burmecia » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:58 pm
Maurepas wrote:In the Senate, however, Mississippi has traditionally enjoyed a greater position of authority, (Jeff Davis, Trent Lott) because everyone has equal representation...
by Maurepas » Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:59 pm
Newer Burmecia wrote:Maurepas wrote:In the Senate, however, Mississippi has traditionally enjoyed a greater position of authority, (Jeff Davis, Trent Lott) because everyone has equal representation...
I lol'd.
by Mortshnefran » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:00 pm
Khadgar wrote:Why should I trust the state government any more than I do the federal? The more elected officials that have to answer to my whims the better represented my beliefs are.
by Bluth Corporation » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:00 pm
UNIverseVERSE wrote:You misunderstand what the 17th does. It increases not the power of the Federal Government, but the power of the people. Explain why it is needed to take power from the people, in what is supposed to be some sort of 'democracy'.
by Bluth Corporation » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:03 pm
Newer Burmecia wrote:What's to say that senators chosen by a state legislature would want a smaller government than one chosen by the people in an election?
by Khadgar » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:03 pm
Mortshnefran wrote:Khadgar wrote:Why should I trust the state government any more than I do the federal? The more elected officials that have to answer to my whims the better represented my beliefs are.
you only need to trust the state government to be self interested. and as the point of the senate was to reflect the interest of the states...
by UNIverseVERSE » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:04 pm
Bluth Corporation wrote:Because "democracy" is not important. The masses (including, apparently, you) have fetishized a form of government, forgetting that the form of government is only a means to an end and not an end in itself. What actually matters is what government does; the particular power structures by which it decides what to do and how to do it are secondary.
Giving more "power to the people," in this case, removed an important bulwark against federal encroachments on individual liberties.
by Atreath » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:04 pm
by Khadgar » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:05 pm
UNIverseVERSE wrote:Oh fook off.
Most of the States have spent just as much time as the federal government hammering individual liberties There's no reason to expect that senators appointed by a State government will stick up for individual liberties any more than those voted in by the people. Indeed, one would expect that such senators are more likely to be in favour of increased government power.
by Galloism » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:06 pm
Atreath wrote:The senate was designed to be the voice of the state governments. The house was designed to make sure the state governments didn't abuse that power. Since the house is voted for in local districts. It would make sense that you have a higher chance of getting your voice heard from your representative than a senator that is voted for by the total population of a state that may or may not agree with your views. In which case I would argue to either repeal the 17th amendment or preferably abolish the senate.
If you're worried about lack of representation for a given state than introduce term limits instead. Regardless the status quo is simply ridiculous.
by Bluth Corporation » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:07 pm
UNIverseVERSE wrote:Most of the States have spent just as much time as the federal government hammering individual liberties There's no reason to expect that senators appointed by a State government will stick up for individual liberties any more than those voted in by the people. Indeed, one would expect that such senators are more likely to be in favour of increased government power.
by Atreath » Fri Jun 05, 2009 2:07 pm
Galloism wrote:They won't until they get one of these:
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Infected Mushroom, The Archregimancy, Varsemia
Advertisement