Posted on 05/24/2010 6:42:47 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
The 17th was an attempt to “democratize” the process and a way to control and manipulate the more powerful of the two houses. It should be repealed and senators made to answer to their states and the people of the state.
Problem is, Senators are not going to vote themselves out of office,because, in effect, that is exactly what repealing the 17th would do.
This would never pass.
The best one thing to “discipline” a run-away Federal Government?
Kill the Federal Reserve.
If no Federal Reserve, there would be no bubble blowing. There would be no Gov’t bailouts or “too big to fail.” The Government could not fund huge deficits year after year, there would be no huge entitlements - because the Gov’t would need to either tax or borrow from the public immediately, and the reaction in the market would be instantaneous.
Think about it - IF there was no Federal Reserve to debase the dollar, and gains from productivity in the economy would go to workers and the middle class. No money could be siphoned off from the middle class by the stealth taxes and inflation.
The Federal Reserve actually SUPPORTS the wealthies members of our ruling class. IF no Federal Reserve, the likes of Goldman Sachs would have paid the price long ago through bankruptcy.
Best regards,
If Senators were elected by the Legislatures, then God help California. The State Legislature is terribly corrupt and far to the left. I bet every state that has large, liberal mega-cities would face the same problem.
Individual citizens have a lot of say in electing State Senators, currently. Watch Barbara Boxer go straight To Jail, Do Not Pass GO.
Antifederalist 39The State legislatures do not choose senators by legislative or sovereign authority, but by a power of ministerial agency as mere electors or boards of appointment. They have no power to direct the senators how or what duties they shall perform; they have neither power to censure the senators, nor to supersede them for misconduct.
It is not the power of choosing to office merely that designates sovereignty, or else corporations who appoint their own officers and make their own by-laws, or the heads of department who choose the officers under them, such as commanders of armies, etc., may be called sovereigns, because they can name men to office whom they cannot dismiss therefrom.
The exercise of sovereignty does not consist in choosing masters, such as the senators would be, who, when chosen, would be beyond control, but in the power of dismissing, impeaching, or the like, those to whom authority is delegated. The power of instructing or superseding of delegates to Congress under the existing confederation has never been complained of, although the necessary rotation of members of Congress has often been censured for restraining the state sovereignties too much in the objects of their choice. As well may the electors who are to vote for the president under the new constitution, be said to be vested with the sovereignty, as the State legislatures in the act of choosing senators.
The senators are not even dependent on the States for their wages, but in conjunction with the federal representatives establish their own wages. The senators do not vote by States, but as individuals. The representatives also vote as individuals, representing people in a consolidated or national government; they judge upon their own elections, and, with the Senate, have the power of regulating elections in time, place and manner, which is in other words to say, that they have the power of elections absolutely vested in them.
Repeal would certainly cure what ails our senate today.
Yes. You’re correct.
I should have said ‘voting to repeal the 17th’.
Something I doubt the Senate would do.
That would be like asking someone on Welfare to vote to force Welfare recipients to work!
Ain’t gonna happen.
Repeal the 16th amendment with the 17th and we’ll take the corrupt Senators money away as well.
It is long past time to audit, then abolish the the Fed.
You will have lots of FReepers slam you and call you a kook.
But the reality is that what we see today is the fruit of fiat currency and paper money backed by nothing but the “full faith and confidence” in the government.
I don’t have faith in the government. I am not confident they will do anything but make life worse for everyone, if given the opportunity.
The Federal Reserve system is based on theft, fraud, and deceit.
It should be repealed and senators made to answer to their states and the people of the state.
The thing is ... right now the Senators do answer to the people of the state, by way of those people of the state electing them or not electing them -- directly.
What this would do -- is remove the "people of the state" -- one more level "away from" the Senator and direct accountability to the people of the state.
It would then be, the Senator is accountable to the legislators and then, through the legislators, the people of the state have a say. That's putting the "people of the state" further away from the Senators in terms of those Senators' accountability.
And ever since both Senate and House have been directly “accountable” to the people, government has grown ginormously, while the states have no way of acting prophylactically against that, via appointment of Senators. Having at least one branch of the legislature accountable to the people is important, but it is apparently not enough to restrain government. And I’m not discounting the importance of the 16th Amendment in helping to allow government growth, either.
If the California legislature were slecting the senators from the state, how would we see any difference from the ones the state is sending to DC now?
We wouldn’t. However, the way it is now, we have a chance. The Legislature seems (always?) loaded with folks from the big liberal cities. And then they gerrymander. They would have it locked up for good, wouldn’t they? Wonder why the 17th was enacted — something must have triggered it. The rise of big cities, perhaps? I don’t know .
And ever since both Senate and House have been directly “accountable” to the people, government has grown ginormously, while the states have no way of acting prophylactically against that, via appointment of Senators.
You'll notice that I was answering this statement ...
... senators made to answer to their states and the people of the state.
And if that's what one is talking about having -- i.e., being "accountable to the people of the state" -- then you can't get any closer in "accountability" than the direct elections by the people that these Seantors have right now.
But, obviously you're not talking about the Senators being directly accountable to the people but being directly accountable to the "states" (as in the legislators). That seems to be wide-open for "good ole boy politics" at work and in action there ... :-) ...
I think that the "people of the state" -- themselves -- would prefer the direct accountability to their Senators. So, I doubt you're going to find those same "people of the state" -- ratifying such a Constitutional Amendment, in which they put themselves (those people of the states) further away in the direct accountability that these people have with their Seantors right now.
Term limit them out. Two five year terms, then back to the real world. Two three year terms for congressmen.
But the Senate was not designed to be directly accountable to the people -- we already had the House for that. The Senate, by its accountability to the state legislature, was to turn back efforts by the Federal government to take power away from the states.
This arrangement went hand in hand with having 2 senators from each state no matter its size. It's a shame that such an elegant plan was overturned during the regrettable progressive age.
There’s another way: initialpoints.net
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.