Bump.
If it were up to me I would retain the right to vote for senators but give the win to whoever wins the most districts.
I’m at the point now where words or books have no substantive meaning in this battle between the evil we have come to confirm is Democrat and the last vestiges of freedom minded Americans. Words and books won’t cut it in this battle.
It wasn't a real good slathering, and mistakes were made where the Supreme Court ended up as its own judge.
The very same Founders did something very suspicious when they wrote up the rules for the Indiana Territory ~ the state Senate was turned into the chief court ~ boom boom ~ boom boom ~ boom boom ~ tympanic noise resounds in the hall.
Same guys; a dramatically different idea for a Senate. BTW, the Indiana legislature was still handling divorces in acts of the legislature in the late 1800s! That was after the reform of taking it out of the hands of the Senate alone.
The other territories and states that were laid out to rule the Old Northwest as it was carved up into states did pretty much the same thing ~ use the senate as a court ~
I think if we needed anything to give us a proper perspective on the Senate, it would be as a court with jurisdiction on all cases at law arising out of federal law. That would include any possible conflicts with state laws created by federal law.
He’s right. There’s a reason the Democrats worked so hard to retain control of the Senate. There are only about 33 races every two years there. They mass their resources and win. And when a Democrat wins a Senate race, he/she is there for six years advancing the Democrat party. Their leadership is smarter than the Republican leadership. And since the Democrats control the judicial branch, the legislative branch is moot anyway as the Democrats will challenge every Republican backed law in court and win the vast majority of the cases.
It was the Earl Warren SCOTUS that wrecked that representative communications track with Reynolds v. Sims and Baker v. Carr, two rulings for which they neither had the Constitutional authority, nor were consistent with its construction for State representation. By forcing the States to have direct elections of their State Senators, they were violating the exact principle under which the US Senate was ordained. The result was exactly the same as the 17th Amendment, placing rural areas at the mercy of the ignorant whims of urban voters and the media that herd them.
I can't see why guys like Mark Levin haven't made this simple and effective point.
Although I would support the repeal of 17A just to help reconnect patriots with the Constitution and its history, 17A is not the problem with the unconstitutionally big federal government imo. The problem is that constitutionally ignorant voters don't understand that most of the spending programs that candidates promise to get themselves elected as federal lawmakers are based on constitutionally nonexistent federal powers.
In fact, what you're not going to hear from Obama guard dog Fx News is the following. Practically the only federal program that Congress has the power to regulate, tax and spend for within state borders is the postal service as evidenced by the Constitution's Clause 7 of Section 8 of Article I. In other words, federal government has no power to tax and spend for most other government services within state borders.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." --Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
While I agree the 17th gelded the Senate and States Powers, there is nothing in the above that is remarkable or noteworthy other than the off hand comment about Senators actually reading it.
The rules of the Senate are on cloture are 100% senate rules with no constitutional issues at all. They own it, they encumber themselves with it.
Short answer: yes.
No matter how you change the terms, they don’t represent the States, or they represent a district, yiptido!
Er ... Gesundheit?