Posted on 06/07/2013 8:39:41 AM PDT by Jacquerie
Bull.
Only after the 17th did power consolidate in DC.
It gave us Wickard v. Filburn, a federal court system hostile to retained state powers, "unfunded mandates," and top down agencies like the EPA and department of non-education that push the states around.
Madison and the Framers were well aware of man's fallen nature. The system they set up countered interest with another interest. The feds v. the states were supposed to be in tension; they were. By that tension, neither the states nor feds could seriously affect our freedoms.
You still haven't answered my question, presumably because you can't.
I have NEVER predicted rainbows and lollipops upon repeal of the 17th. Repeal is a necessary first step to correct the damage done by a hundred years of demagogic senators.
If there is to be any good to come from the reign of this incredible impostor, let it be that the States re-assert their sovereign rights.
Fasten seat belts. Bumpy decade coming up!
What? No, the Senate is supposed to be representative of the States themselves, not the people of those States — the people are already represented via the Representatives. Moving the selection/appointment of Senator from the State to the people thereof makes the States themselves impotent in the federal system, thereby making the States into mere extensions of the FedGov (which is why there's been so little blowback against some truly horrendous actions in the Federal government); consider, for example, the evil of incorporation:
What we have in incorporation is the ability of the court to take the Constitution, apply some magical transformation, and then use that to constrain the States - a prime example being the 1st Amendment, by incorperating it against the States the courts magically transform 'Congress' to mean 'legislature' and then apply that to the states. In so doing they become not Judges, but lawgivers [a legislature in itself].
This usurpation is of course the seed which grew into Roe v. Wade where the USSC repealed all States's abilities to govern their own citizens [the unborn].
So there is a chamber were each state is equally represented irrespective of population. Do you really “question that purpose” Repeal the 17th? Add in other reasons you want 2 chambers instead of 1 (so legislation can’t just get rammed though). Are you being simple?
You Jacquerie continue to live in fantasy world if you think career politicians will choose better Senators, they won’t, period. The system was wrought with corruption and delays with seats sitting empty for months, that’s why they changed it.
I think the founders GOT IT RIGHT BIG TIME when they stuck in the provision that allowed you to amend the constitution. Thank goodness we passed a bill of rights, fixed the Presidential election process so it didn’t always end in a tie (1800) ect. Aside from prohibition and the income tax (and giving DC electors for President) I think we’ve done a pretty good job making positive changes.
I am forceful on this issue for good reason, I and millions of others live in rat county (don’t tell to move, save it). My vote for US House is meaningless. You want to disenfranchise me and take away my only vote for Congress that matters and give the power to a bunch of g*d-damn politicians. Politicians of both parties are pond scum, in every state, even Texas and Utah are filled with RINO slime. David Dewhurst would be the Senator for Texas now instead of Ted Cruz whom the people chose.
I will continue to oppose this ridiculous idea of giving my right to vote back to state legislators even though it apparently means saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again.
I would advise you that it’s never gonna happen Jacquerie so you are wasting your time. I guess I am too but I can’t stand the proliferation of ignorance in pushing this dumb idea.
Really ? That seems to be your stock-in-trade.
"Repeal is a necessary first step to correct the damage done by a hundred years of demagogic senators."
You keep telling yourself that. We'd be lucky to have a Senate that wasn't substantially worse than the one at present, lined with party hacks thoroughly unaccountable to the people (nevermind the Constitution). Not a single Ted Cruz amongst them.
Except they wouldn’t be representatives of the states... they’d be representatives of the national parties. You’d have an even stronger, concerted and unprecedented effort to anoint state legislators by the national parties in order to get the hacks they want, both in the state capitols and in DC. The 17th came into being because of the corruption and unaccountability that was already audacious in that body by the end of the 19th century.
And you are missing a key constitutional point. The 17th emasculated a key power of the sovereign states.
The pre-17th Senators were usually as corrupt a bunch'o'hacks as we have today. The difference is that they were sent there by State Legislatures, who at least had some oversight of their hacks. So they were less likely to pontificate on matters that did not immediately concern their state. They were held much more accountable than they are today. Furthermore, a Senator did not have to be rich to be elected by the legislature. Of course, it wouldn't hurt.
Popularly elected Senators now seem to quickly become creatures of the Federal Government. Safe in six-year seats, they ignore their constituents at no particular peril. E.G., Feinstein and Boxer? Both have become worth HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in office.
Pull up a post of mine where I remotely said anything like that. You cannot.
You think your senators are responsible to the people? They are responsible to their political parties. Repeal the 17th and they would once again be responsible to their states.
Your rat assemblymen would not suffer senators who did not look out for their state’s interests. As you say, period.
Baloney.
Pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork, pork...
Democrats (and RINOs) and I DIFFER HEAVILY ON WHAT OUR STATE'S INTERESTS ARE. And by the way NONE OF THEM OPPOSE FEDERAL POWER (unless it's used for good like banning queer marriage). This is part of your fantasy.
Jeez. The problem is socialism and what is called "liberalism" not how Senators are elected.
Federal government is oppressive. State government is oppressive. Local government is oppressive.
O quite agree. But how exactly are we to make sure that our representatives represent us? Well, the FF's thought that if we elect the state reps for short terms, we could punish them for selecting the wrong Senators.
Federal government is oppressive. State government is oppressive. Local government is oppressive.
Gosh. Agree again. So did the FFs, who wanted to keep (IMNVHO) the levers of elective power as close to home as possible, so the oppressor at the local level had to be very accessible. (If it weren't for TV and the Internet, more of these local yokels would be assuming ambient temperature more frequently)
Problem: We have grown a sort of governmental cancer. That is, the bureaucracies that rule us, soldier on no matter who is in office, and can themselves "reward" the behavior they want from the elected. Their money must be taken away.
Virginia is a perfect example of what the repeal of the 17th amendment would do. Va would have 2 Republican Senators right now if the 17th was ditched.
A couple of statist Federal bootlicking pimps hate your idea of repealing the 17th. I guess you are doing a good thing, keep it up. Bravo Zulu.
Liberalism is certainly a problem. It was fertilized and nurtured by the rush of progressive amendments/mistakes a hundred years ago.
Question: What is the probability a president would bother to nominate judges to federal benches who had shown hostility to the 10th Amendment? Why would a senate of the states even consider them?
BTW, spare me your silly theatrics. They have no effect.
The final option is always available, secession.
Well, that would be a good thing, although I am not that sold on the benefits of the GOP to our republic.
Today’s Senate is the plaything of Obama. Any rat senator up for reelection in 2014 doesn’t dare to cross Obama or Dingy Harry. To do so means maybe a primary challenger and certainly no $ from the DNC or major rat deep-pockets. Popularly elected rat senators are entirely responsible to populist Obama for continuance in office.
I imagine the return to a Senate of the States in which members don’t give a rip what Obama, CNN, MSNBC, WaPO, NYT . . . have to say.
Democracy is killing our republic.
Yeah, 2 leftist RINO big gubmint hacks. But you’ve been told that repeatedly.
Agree, hopefully after attempting other options.
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.