Posted on 01/26/2010 4:11:17 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
And now senators are being elected by interests outside the state. My two communist senators represent the eco-fascists in California and the anti-war nutjobs in New York and Hollywood.
How is that good for the state?
In today's world, who is the well armed lamb...talk radio?
Actually, I think it needs to be two-pronged approach...repeal the 17th amendment giving power back to the states, but then ALSO repeal the 16th amendment. And then have the feds collect their tax revenue from the individual states, rather than from the individual citizen.
Two bonuses to this...a state could then have any tax system they want...fair, flat, sales...whatever. Also, the costs of the benefits reaped by a state would not be spread out over the entire nation. If North Carolina wants to get 100 billion from the Feds for bat guano research, the citizens of NC can get taxed more heavily by their own legislature and the state would then pay that money back.
Good post...and I agree. The US would be far better off it the federal government was forced back into the proper balance of power with the states, and having the requirement of obtaining tax money from the states instead of directly would help instill that. It would also remove the need for the entire IRS department at the federal level. One more element of power that'd be removed back to the states which must already have some structure in place anyway, so it removes an unnecessary redundancy.
So maybe the imbecile voters in these states should start considering voting for Republicans, if their grotesquely Rat legislatures would continually appoint airheads like Marcia Cokehead to the Senate? Not that the party of Miss Lindsey Grahamnesty, Juan McCain, Olympia Snowe, and Dede Scozzafava (not to mention morally bankrupt shark-jumper Newt Gingrich) is that much better than the Dems, anyhow, if you’re worried about the makeup of the U.S. Senate.
The point is, maybe working to change the state legislatures is a better idea than throwing out repeal entirely. That way, we wouldn’t have to worry so much about what kind of scum Massachusetts, Maryland, and New York would appoint to the U.S. Senate.
Would you prefer those same two be elected by your Sacramento legislators and make them 100% directly unaccountable to the voters ? With the 17th amendement in place, CA would’ve had no Republican Senators after the 1960s, the last time they had majority control of the entire legislature (1969). In my state, the Gore family would’ve controlled the Senate seats for a half-century, perhaps longer (because the Dem legislative majority would’ve returned Gore to his old seat after he lost the Presidency).
You may not like the 17th, but you’d have a far worse scenario as I described.
It would weaken the party influence dramatically. For example, Schumer and Gillibrand in New York would have to vote down a horrendous health care bill that would bring horrific added costs to their state, rather than sucking it up and voting for it for the good of their party.
Direct election of Senators made them the party animals they currently are. Their mission and reason for existence, as described in the constitution, was destroyed. Now we have hacks instead of statesmen.
The MA GOP is a dead party, so electing more of them to the point of having any say in how things are run would be, as it stands now, next to impossible. The people love their corrupt local pols and won’t vote them out. I’d bet there is an excellent chance that Brown’s State Senate seat will go rodent, making it only 4 seats away from a 100% Democrat-controlled body.
Thanks to the 17th, you at least had the people able to send at least 1 Senator from the GOP (not that he was a prize) until 1979. If it had been repealed, the last Republican Senator elected would’ve been in 1954. From 1959 onward, all Democrat. Maine, which still has a decent amount of GOP legislators, albeit not a majority, would be sending deranged Socialist moonbats like Chellie Pingree instead of the twins.
This is not an argument to say we shouldn’t work on changing the legislative makeup of the bodies, because we absolutely should, only that for all those that think repealing the 17th would result in better Senators, you’re in for a shock. They’d be even worse than now. Many parts of the South would still be sending 2 Democrats from each state, corrupt puppets of party lobbyists and legislative leaders (KY, AR, NC, MS, AL & LA), even TN would still be sending 1 Democrat (probably Gore himself).
Let me counter your argument. I’m going to use West Virginia as an example. I don’t know what the makeup of their state legislatures are, Republican or Democrat. Lets say they have a majority democratic legislature. Currently, Robert Byrd and Jay Rockefeller (their two Senators) are for Cap n Tax.
Now, even if they appointed two Democratic Senators that were responsible to the state legislature, do you think those two Senators would be for Cap N Tax with a state legislature that needs the Coal industry like West Virginia does? Byrd and Rockefeller are influenced by interests outside of West Virginia to vote for Cap N Tax, if they were dependent on West Virginia’s influence, there is no way they would vote for Cap N Tax...
“Would you prefer those same two be elected by your Sacramento legislators and make them 100% directly unaccountable to the voters ?”
That’s the point. My two nutjob senators are exactly what the Sacramento legislators would have appointed to the US Senate. These senators are supposed to represent the interests of Michigan, not California.
Just from reading some of the posts on here, I think we need to educate a lot of freepers on states rights and the 17th amendment.
Have you seen the NY legislature ? Thugs like Schumer (joined by seatmate Mario Cuomo) would be safe for life, he wouldn’t even have to raise a dime. You’d never have to worry about a Republican winning there, the last would’ve been in 1970. All Democrat after 1975. Good luck with that increased accountability, because it ain’t gonna happen.
It’s breathtaking a conservative could still nurture this silly idea post-Scott Brown. I bet the brit Blakley loves the House of Lords too.
You’re gonna reinforce my argument. I don’t think most of the people participating in this thread are remotely aware of the makeup of the state legislatures. I am, and from a historical standpoint as well. If the 17th remained in place, the last Republican Senator in WV would’ve taken office in 1929 (and even then, perhaps not). You’d not have had to worry about a GOP legislature for 80 years, and people like Byrd and Rockefeller would still be there now. Would they be for C&T ? One might say, “why not ?” Again, you presume that somehow there’d be accountability on behalf of these two, and how would that be when their Democrat hacks and cronies (whose party has controlled the body without interruption for 8 decades), would be in charge of the legislature and decides who goes to DC ?
Agree with you both.
Boortz had recently suggested this too. It is worthy of consideration. I had thought of this idea several years ago; wiser heads than mine talked me out of it. Here’s why:
Now that Americans are able to be better informed than ever, this should be the decade when the 17th Amemendment BEGINS. The amendment is not bad, but it was indeed far ahead of its time.
Stepping in closer, to see particular trees rather than the entire forest, here are some particular examples:
1. To look at it in light of this particular month, consider how the Americans have global warming at the bottom of our priority list. Why? Information. First, the Oregon Petition. Then, the Climategate Scandal Cluster. Would state legislators choose a senator who thinks cutting edge? Heck no. Legislators would most likely select someone who moderates the issue.
2. The recent Free Speech Ruling. This is the truly remarkable tree in this 17th Amendment forest. Corporations are now empowered to get people even MORE informed. The reason for this is that people became rapidly well informed about GW Bush’s judicial appointments, and we didn’t settle for semi-Constitutionalists. After the Kelo Court, we demanded ‘Originalists or Bust’.
I think that BO’s ‘reverb’ speeches were a brilliant exception to the norm, especially when we had an orchestrated economic meltdown [in my opinion at least], and a weak moderate candidate [the kind of squish who state legislators would prefer].
3. The Mass. Race. People were not led by the nose because they are better informed.
Timing is important with ideas. I think repealing the 17th never looked worse.
At least Michigan would’ve had a fighting chance to have elected Republican Senators (since you still have the State Senate and had the House until 2007), so one might be able to argue the 17th would’ve been more recently advantageous to that state, but for more than half the states (CA, NY, most of the Northeast, IL, et al) it wouldn’t be. When this argument came up awhile ago, I listed what the makeup of the U.S. Senate would look like now, and the numbers were scarcely different overall. The fact that you’d have some states not having elected GOP Senators to DC since the 19th century, even now, is what is particularly disturbing.
” ... repealing the 17th would result in better Senators, you’re in for a shock. They’d be even worse than now. ...”
I agree. Not only that, I am very optimistic about a bright future of well informed voters. A wall between them and senators in the flowering Information Age would be a disastrous mistake.
Making him less susceptible to out-of-state influences. Chuck-chuck-bo-buck-banana-fana-fo-you-know-the-rest would have to follow the wishes of his state legislature. If the legislators decided that Cap-and-Tax would hurt New York disproportionately, it wouldn't matter what Miss Lindsey Grahamnesty or John F'in Kerry had to say about it. If the state's voters were against Real ID, the Senators wouldn't vote for it, lest they want to face recall by the legislature.
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.