Repeal the 17th amendment to the U.S. constitution

[UNIverseVERSE]

I addressed this already. Please pay attention next time.

My post was written before yours was made. Please pay attention next time.

Why, exactly, is it alright for state governments to trample liberties, when the federal government shouldn't be doing so? Surely both are just as bad?

[Newer Burmecia]

The idea is that state governments and federal governments each have their own defined scopes of power. Presumably, state governments like their power and want to keep it, so the idea of the Senate was that the legislatures would send Senators who would fight against federal encroachments on state power.

Same difference. Ideological differences, the incentive to secure spending in one's state and the need to senatpors to work together to pass legislation would still encourage senators to act according to their ideology rather than their state. Do you seriously imagine Massachusetts sending an anti-Roe v. Wade senator, or Mississippi a supporter of same sex marriage in DC on grounds of states' rights?

[Mortshnefran]

I addressed this already. Please pay attention next time.

My post was written before yours was made. Please pay attention next time.

Why, exactly, is it alright for state governments to trample liberties, when the federal government shouldn't be doing so? Surely both are just as bad?

it's not about who is better or worse it's about preventing a consolidation of power at any level.

[Grays Harbor]

I have no idea what you're talking about so here's a painting of Sarah Palin with pancakes on her head:

I see your Sarah Palin with pancakes and raise you a Hillary Clinton holding a pizza behind her head.






(although what this has to do with the topic...... )

[Atreath]

I addressed this already. Please pay attention next time.

My post was written before yours was made. Please pay attention next time.

Why, exactly, is it alright for state governments to trample liberties, when the federal government shouldn't be doing so? Surely both are just as bad?

Agreed, which is why we should limit political power wherever possible. As it stands today the same politician can get old, fat and senile and still keep their senate seat because of an uninformed majority that usual votes on campaign slogans rather than actually monitoring what the senate does.

[Maurepas]

Mississippi a supporter of same sex marriage in DC on grounds of states' rights?

Not if my vote isnt separate from the State legislature's anyway,

[Lunatic Goofballs]

I addressed this already. Please pay attention next time.

My post was written before yours was made. Please pay attention next time.

Why, exactly, is it alright for state governments to trample liberties, when the federal government shouldn't be doing so? Surely both are just as bad?

it's not about who is better or worse it's about preventing a consolidation of power at any level.

Not even at the individual level?

[Newer Burmecia]

Not if my vote isnt separate from the State legislature's anyway,

Good luck with that one mate!

[Mortshnefran]

Not even at the individual level?

not even at the individual level.

[Newer Burmecia]

Agreed, which is why we should limit political power wherever possible. As it stands today the same politician can get old, fat and senile and still keep their senate seat because of an uninformed majority that usual votes on campaign slogans rather than actually monitoring what the senate does.

I assume that you, like everybody that moans about the great unwashed, consider yourself better informed?

[Atreath]

Not even at the individual level?

not even at the individual level.

Why? Individuals should have as much power over their own lives as humanly possible.

[Atreath]

I assume that you, like everybody that moans about the great unwashed, consider yourself better informed?

Not really no.

[Mortshnefran]

Not even at the individual level?

not even at the individual level.

Why? Individuals should have as much power over their own lives as humanly possible.

true, but should they have that power over another? that is limiting the consolidation of power just as much. and in fact is the whole point of gov. in the first place.

[Newer Burmecia]

not even at the individual level.

Why do I suddenly think of the Family Guy clip where the FCC limits the number of time Adam West can shake his gentlemen's area after using the loo?

[Atreath]

true, but should they have that power over another? that is limiting the consolidation of power just as much. and in fact is the whole point of gov. in the first place.

Of course not. One individuals power over another would limit the power of another individual.

[Northwest Slobovia]

The 17th amendment provided for the direct election of U.S. senators. The constitution as originally written created the bicameral legislature for a reason.

I agree. The Founding Fathers were perfect, and knew it, which is why they had no disputes among themselves and saw no reason anybody should tinker with their perfect form of government. Thus, they set the Constitution in stone. Those inconvenient 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments should go on similar grounds as the 17th, and the 3/5ths rule reinstituted posthaste.

[Mortshnefran]

not even at the individual level.

Why do I suddenly think of the Family Guy clip where the FCC limits the number of time Adam West can shake his gentlemen's area after using the loo?

because it's fun to think about adam west's junk?

[Mortshnefran]

true, but should they have that power over another? that is limiting the consolidation of power just as much. and in fact is the whole point of gov. in the first place.

Of course not. One individuals power over another would limit the power of another individual.

not allowing one individual control over another is limiting power at the individual level.

The 17th amendment provided for the direct election of U.S. senators. The constitution as originally written created the bicameral legislature for a reason.

I agree. The Founding Fathers were perfect, and knew it, which is why they had no disputes among themselves and saw no reason anybody should tinker with their perfect form of government. Thus, they set the Constitution in stone. Those inconvenient 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments should go on similar grounds as the 17th, and the 3/5ths rule reinstituted posthaste.

because that is totally what i am arguing

[Newer Burmecia]

Not really no.

Fair enough, I guess. Most people who say that have a habit of thinking their vote should still count.

[Nihili Veritas]

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 actually think that your representatives are actually going to listen to you? Last I checked, we weren't the ones in charge of their paychecks.

[Atreath]

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 actually think that your representatives are actually going to listen to you? Last I checked, we weren't the ones in charge of their paychecks.

That should change too.

[UNIverseVERSE]

Agreed, which is why we should limit political power wherever possible. As it stands today the same politician can get old, fat and senile and still keep their senate seat because of an uninformed majority that usual votes on campaign slogans rather than actually monitoring what the senate does.

As opposed to the same politician getting old, fat and senile because they're a friend of the governor? Big difference.

[Northwest Slobovia]

The 17th amendment provided for the direct election of U.S. senators. The constitution as originally written created the bicameral legislature for a reason.

I agree. The Founding Fathers were perfect, and knew it, which is why they had no disputes among themselves and saw no reason anybody should tinker with their perfect form of government. Thus, they set the Constitution in stone. Those inconvenient 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments should go on similar grounds as the 17th, and the 3/5ths rule reinstituted posthaste.

because that is totally what i am arguing

But is just as silly. As http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html points, out, the original system broke and broke badly:

17th Amendment
One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another. The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill.

The 17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise — the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred, other issues, such as campaign finances, were introduced. The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people. The Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).

In short, the senators did not advance the interest of the states, but instead produced a number of unresolvable problems.

The concentration of power in the hands of the federal gov't has little to do w/ the 17th amendment, and more to do w/ unrelated political solutions to other problems, for example the New Deal and the rise of the military-industrial complex.

[Lizardiar]

I have no idea what you're talking about so here's a painting of Sarah Palin with pancakes on her head:

I see your Sarah Palin with pancakes and raise you a Hillary Clinton holding a pizza behind her head.






(although what this has to do with the topic...... )

I shall raise you both....



Matrix Obama

[Mortshnefran]

But is just as silly. As http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html points, out, the original system broke and broke badly:

17th Amendment
One of the most common critiques of the Framers is that the government that they created was, in many ways, undemocratic. There is little doubt of this, and it is so by design. The Electoral College, by which we choose our President, is one example. The appointment of judges is another. And the selection of Senators not by the people but by the state legislatures, is yet another. The Senatorial selection system eventually became fraught with problems, with consecutive state legislatures sending different Senators to Congress, forcing the Senate to work out who was the qualified candidate, or with the selection system being corrupted by bribery and corruption. In several states, the selection of Senators was left up to the people in referenda, where the legislature approved the people's choice and sent him or her to the Senate. Articles written by early 20th-century muckrakers also provided grist for the popular-election mill.

The 17th Amendment did away with all the ambiguity with a simple premise — the Senators would be chosen by the people, just as Representatives are. Of course, since the candidates now had to cater to hundreds of thousands, or millions, of people instead of just a few hundred, other issues, such as campaign finances, were introduced. The 17th is not a panacea, but it brings government closer to the people. The Amendment was passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and was ratified on April 8, 1913 (330 days).

In short, the senators did not advance the interest of the states, but instead produced a number of unresolvable problems.

The concentration of power in the hands of the federal gov't has little to do w/ the 17th amendment, and more to do w/ unrelated political solutions to other problems, for example the New Deal and the rise of the military-industrial complex.

those problems seem to be with the way it was handled at the state level and not that it was handled by the state. i don't believe any of those problems were unresolvable. that it is undemocratic is unquestionable. but the assertion that democratic is better in all cases is not. i see this as one of those cases. of course other things also led to the consolidation of power in the federal government but a big one is that the state legislatures voice is no longer heard at the federal level.