Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Justaham

Complete nonsense.

The House is fine, you can replace them every two years.

It’s the royalty in the Senate. The 17th amendment is the devil. Get rid of it and let the ‘State’ elect their senators instead of the mob rule we currently have.


8 posted on 11/10/2009 12:45:53 PM PST by BGHater ("real price of every thing ... is the toil and trouble of acquiring it")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: BGHater; All
The House is fine, you can replace them every two years.

It’s the royalty in the Senate. The 17th amendment is the devil. Get rid of it and let the ‘State’ elect their senators instead of the mob rule we currently have.

Well Said!

'Nuff Said!

24 posted on 11/10/2009 12:52:47 PM PST by Fiddlstix (Warning! This Is A Subliminal Tagline! Read it at your own risk!(Presented by TagLines R US))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: BGHater

Spot on. The only hitch is the unelected staff. They have much more power than people realize and need to be culled.


28 posted on 11/10/2009 12:55:40 PM PST by paddles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: BGHater; Impy
>> It’s the royalty in the Senate. The 17th amendment is the devil. <<

I think you have it backwards. Right now, WE THE PEOPLE can throw the bums out of the Senate. Take away that right from the people and give it government bueruecrats, and you'd have a U.S. Senate with European-style royalty that serve for life.

Look no further than the current Senators who got their job through state government appointment -- Senators Lisa Murkowski, Michael Bennet, Ted Kaufman, George LeMieux, Roland Burris, Paul Kirk, Robert Menendez, and Kirsten Gillibrand. Couple of real gems there, eh? Seems pretty clear to me that when we leave it up to politicians to pick other politicians, they award the job to petty party hacks that have geased the most palms, rather than pick the "best qualified" person to serve the state. Indeed, one of the driving factors in the passing the 17th amendment was the The Chicago Tribune published the admission by Illinois Assemblyman Charles A. White that Billy Lorimer paid $1,000 for his appointment to the U.S. Senate. He only served in the Senate until July 13, 1912, when, after a Senate investigation and acrimonious debate, the Senate adopted a resolution declaring "that corrupt methods and practices were employed in his election, and that the election, therefore, was invalid."

If appointed U.S. Senators is such a great idea, how come its advocates can't point to a single nation that employs such a system and produces a positive result from it? Look anywhere in the world like the U.K., Canada, or Germany, and you'll find the "appointed upper house" is renowned for cronyism and smoke-filled room back door politics, and people have been trying to get rid of it for years but the government elites like their cushy jobs and and won't let them. Just like the liberals claim socialized medicine will solve all our problems put can't seem to locate a single country with a successful government-run health care system.

In both cases, that should cause its supporters to rethink their basic premise that big government can do a better job making decisions than the people. Sadly, it doesn't.

37 posted on 11/10/2009 1:09:34 PM PST by BillyBoy (Impeach Obama? Yes We Can!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson