Posted on 08/25/2010 7:07:09 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“I maintain most state officials less they are conservatives are in favor of federal power. Your assumptions are incorrect.”
Its funny how I always try to never simply say “your wrong” and how often I need to say just that.
My assumptions about human nature are not incorrect and your specific extreme examples also known as exceptions (If they were necessarily likely true) hold no relevances to the rule of Human nature.
Frankly given your stated bias in this situation has left me at a loss as to wether or not it is possable to get you to accnolage that the exception is not the rule.
After all as you made rather clear the only thing that really matters to you is the most likely exception...
Should I wast my time making an argument about the greater good? How while you may be enslaved in your state the rest of us will be more likely liberated? I’m sorry but I reject that kind of thinking, I wont expect you to sacrifice yourself so that the rest of us may be more free. So all I can say to you is to do as your ancestors almost certainly did, immigrate to anther State(anther land) to regain your freedom.
We cannot free a fish form water, but we can alter the water as to make the Fish MORE LIKELY to free itself from that water.
Well BillyBoy the fact that you live with Illinois the lions den of corruption and leftist abuses explains allot about your opposition to this cause.
It also explains your support for the idea of a “national right” to keep and bare arms among other things. Because you don’t like or trust your state and you don’t want to move, you want to get the Federal government to impose it’s will upon your state and by extension everyone else’s state to solve your local corrupt problems.
As this is the same problem as exist with Impy, i can only give you the same advice.
1: Don’t confuses the exception for the rule.
2: If your rights are so important to you MOVE! Don’t endanger us all, while ***ing yourself by leaving no place to move to and little to no long run competition accountability for your State.
As to the greater issue of States avoiding Federal laws, you are correct to an extent they can do this, but only to the extent to which they don’t necessarily need something from Washington D.C. to do that.
The Recent Texas case where the Texas legislator was able to take much of the Federal money sent to them and spend it on reinforcing up their State finances rather then the corrupt causes Washington D.C. intended for them to spend it on is an illustration of what you suggest to a limited degree.
But then again So too is the current 800 million dollar dispute between the State of Texas and the U.S. Federal Government which now refuses to give them that money which was taxed from them until the State can Guarantee that it will only be spent on the corrupt causes which Washington D.C. wants it spent on.
In General our ability to evade Federal direction is limited and would be far more enhanced If senators were more the agent of the States rather then political agents(elected by the people directly) in their own right.
You may trust/like your state leaders even less then your Federal leaders and in your Illinois case I wouldn’t blame you. As clearly from your perspective the lesser of the 2 evils is in Washington D.C.
But you must remember that this is only true if:
1: Your unwilling to move.
2: In the short term, as in the long term your state is going to have to deal with the fact that its neighbors are much freer and more successful then it. That alone will force the people of your state to face facts, particularly the Deadbeat parasites who will find themselves making up a larger and large share of your states population until there there are no Tax slaves from them to subsist off the backs of.
You can’t win by trusting Washington D.C. either way, no matter where you live, you lose when you crush diversity/competition.
“So thanks to Barack, Alan Keyes got his way all along. We now have a Senator selected by Illinois state government in that seat.”
Blago was impeached and removed from office BY THE STATE LEGISLATOR(Same body that the founders rightfully choose to select senators) for trying to sell a Senate seat for PERSONAL(Not State) gain.
A condescending essay that does not state the argument against the 17th well, and leads with emotional attacks.
Net out: This is not an opponent or opposition piece that is worth of further discussion. File under “Arguments by Idiots”.
I agree that the 19th gives a very bad result, in that it makes single people the deciding vote. How does that happen?
Husbands voted for their household. They REPRESENTED the whole interest of the household. When the voter had to be a freeholder — a property owner — that was especially so.
Once we allowed woman’s sufferage that meant the household was no longer represented as a whole. Man and woman, without the concern for the welfare of the household paramount tend to vote more whimsically. When there is a an issue that appeals to men one way and woman another, the votes counteract, and the household thus is at a total loss of representation in the issue. Instead the issue is settled by the single, who are much less likely to own a property and less concerned with the protections a property needs in law and governance.
But I AM FOR WOMEN SUFFERAGE. How can that be reconciled?
I’d prefer having one vote per married household, and that could be the man or woman who votes. Yes, I think it would be proper to require a both marriage and property ownership or long-term lease (at least a year) in order to vote. We can allow widows and widowers an exception. Not for the divorced.
Anyway the sufferage should be established by each state to meet its own needs. The 19th and 26th both are two amendments that restricted the right of states to say who may vote in ways that have caused a general calamity.
There’s no reason of the basic rights of mankind that a state can’t require literacy or property ownership to be a voter. Literacy is available to all in our society, as is property ownership. We are long past the era when slaves where forbidden learn to read.
And Blago ended up selling the Senate seat ANYWAY (AFTER he was arrested!) because the state legislature FAILED to do their job and bar him from doing so (even though they KNEW he had been caught on tape solicting bribes for it!) . As a result, we now have Senator Roland Burris. And yes he was impeached as well. What exactly is your point? Of course he was trying to sell the seat for PERSONAL and not state gain. That will happen if all the other 49 states if you repeal the 17th. If you're delusional enough to believe your state house speaker will decide solely on the criteria of "who's the most qualified person to serve our state, regardless of whether that person helps me", that's your problem. You obviously have a very unrealistic view of state politicans if you believe they're good little public servants who would never dare think of doing things for personal gain.
As for your snarky little "solution" that if I don't like the way my state government is run, I should "MOVE!", the same can be said of you with the federal government, buddy. If don't like our system of electing the upper house of Congress, you are free to MOVE to another country. There are plenty out there that have upper houses whose members are appointed by political insiders and local government bosses. Nobody is forcing you to live in a country with an elected upper house. Since your odds of repealing the 17th amendment are virtually impossible, the ideal solution is to MOVE and find yourself a country that does things the way you want. Canada is right next door and their entire Senate is filled with political hacks appointed for life by government officials, and you'll be pleased to know the citizens of Canada have absolutely no say in the matter. Feel free to move there and you can enjoy your new government overlords and take comfort in the fact you'll have absolutely no power to hold them accountable or vote them out of office.
“And Blago ended up selling the Senate seat ANYWAY (AFTER he was arrested!) because the state legislature FAILED to do their job and bar him from doing so (even though they KNEW he had been caught on tape solicting bribes for it!) . As a result, we now have Senator Roland Burris. And yes he was impeached as well. What exactly is your point?”
You’ve made it, even in one of the most corrupt states in the Union something approaching justice took place, and it was the State legislator that did it. I wouldn’t have even predicted that. Yes there will be bad apples! But the bad apples are the exception not the rule. Even them Bad Apples will generally be inclined to protect their own power in their choices.
Your talking about a minority of a minority of examples and using that to say that the majority don’t work as they would be naturally inclined to do so.
“Of course he was trying to sell the seat for PERSONAL and not state gain. That will happen if all the other 49 states if you repeal the 17th. If you’re delusional enough to believe your state house speaker will decide solely on the criteria of “who’s the most qualified person to serve our state, regardless of whether that person helps me”, that’s your problem. “
Is what im saying going in one ear and out the other?
IN general that “personal” interest by the head of the legislator will be to select someone who will help protect the same’s power.
How is that so hard to beleive?
Just because Blago tried to sell something for money and of course got caught doesn’t mean there aren’t other people interested in the non-monetary(power) benefits of such a seat.
Insolently this is why having the legislator select senators instead of the Governor is a good idea.
While their are only 50 Governors in the Untied States to divide the spoils that might come from 100 Senator’s indiviual power, there are 7,382 State legislators in the United States.
Of course there is a different number for each state ranging from 424 in New Hampshire down to just 49 in Nebraska.
Actual count by state in case you want to know: http://www.empirecenter.org/html/2003/02/legislators_number.cfm
The point is the spoils of power splits a lot more thinly among 49 people then it does 1.
It’s more expensive to buy off 49 people as exist at minimum in Nebraska then it is to buy off just 2.
Is there any doubt we're dealing with wishful thinking rather than facts?
We're supposed to believe Roland Burris' appointment was a fluke and an exception to the rule that would result in decent Senators being appointed. Are ALL the other Senators that currently owe their jobs to state governments -- Ted Kaufman, Michael Bennet, Bob Menendez, Lisa Murkowski, etc., ALSO an "exception" to the rule? Are we to believe that Lisa Murkowski was selected for the job because she was truly the BEST qualified person to serve Alaska's interests? (Sarah Palin and Joe Miller just successfully otherwise to voters). If not, we're supposed to believe Frank Murkowski's blatant nepotism by elevating his worthless RINO daughter to the Senate was also a "rare" example of a politician doing things to increase his own clout? Are we to believe the fact that at least 80% of the state-appointed Senators CURRENTLY in office are hacks and NOT the best and brightest people from their state is merely a coincidence?
Massachuttes Demcocrats would oppose Obamacare. That's one of the things being seriously argued here. And we're supposed to accept this at face value. What's next, an article claiming San Francisco Democrats would ban gay marriage if we left it up to them instead of the entire stae?
The Illinois House impeached Blago when his approval rating was in the teens and it would have been political suicide NOT to so. That way they got him out the way and did damage control to prevent him from dragging them down with him (but NOT before Blago got to appoint the Senator of his choice, of course!) Wow, those Illinois state legislators are just shining examples of profiles in courage, aren't they? Give them a round of applause for saving their own hides!
You know what's really amusing, all these "repeal the 17th amendment" advocates always make it a huge point to argue they're not for changing the way the house is elected, only the Senate. We'd still be allowed to vote for our own Congressman (which makes a difference for the 30% of Americans in districts that aren't gerrymandered for one party! the rest of us are out of luck in having any say over our federal officials). But think about it -- if they're so certain that an APPOINTED U.S. Senate chosen by state legislators would be VASTLY superior to elected ones (it would save our Republic! it would stop Obamacare! it would stop amnesty!), why would they WANT House members to be chosen by the "inferior" system of popular votes? After all, this is the very system they claimed DESTROYED the Senate. But you want Congressman chosen by the SAME horrible system? Touche. If I thought having state legislators choose Senators would restore that body into a grandeur meeting of statesmen that look out for the best interests of their states, I'd want them appointing EVERY damn federal job available.
Why not the BEST, guys? Since the Senate will soooooo much better, let's have these wonderful state legislators pick our President too. And our Vice President, and our cabinet. And every since member of the House of Representatives. Plus all their staffers and every single person holding a federal job, right down to the janitor at the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. Aren't you excited about the possibility of a federal government made up of the cream of the crop, WHOLLY composed people 100% committed to the BEST interests of their states (with only extremely RARE exceptions, of course) ? ;-)
The corrupt political class feeds itself.
We'll have to agree to dis.
I wonder what happened in the past when the 2 legislative houses in a state were divided. It was rare for them to be I believe. Much more common now. Did the 2 houses vote together or did each house have to agree? Hello gridlock.
Democrats gained a majority by picking up four seats in the Virginia State Senate in the November 2007 Virginia legislative elections,
Mark Warner was elected U.S. Senator from Virginia in the November 2008 elections. It was an open senate race, since John Warner was retiring.
So had it been up the state legislature, Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw, (D) would have presided over a RAT controlled body making the decision over who should succeed him.
Whoops. Try again.
Billy, I’m on your side with this one with respect to keeping the 17th, however Senators were elected by the votes of the ENTIRETY of the legislature. Even with a Dem State Senate in VA, the number of Republicans in the VA House would be enough to have kept both Webb and Mark Warner out of the U.S. Senate...
...And presuming they all voted in partisan lock-step:
The vote for Senator in an Allen-Webb contest for the term beginning in Jan 2007 would’ve been 80R-57D (with 2 or 3 Indies breaking R, so 82 or 83 in favor of Allen).
The vote for Senator in a Jim Gilmore-Mark Warner contest for the term beginning in Jan 2009 would’ve been 72R-66D (with both Indies breaking R, so 74 in favor of Gilmore).
Your obsessed with party and blind to nature, shall I repeat again what I’ve already said a thousand times?
It will only continue to go in one of your ears and out the other unobstructed.
“Before you cast aspersions, genius, perhaps you should note that repealing the 17th Amendment would not effect the appointment of senators every six years. The present legislature would not have appointed either of the two goofballs we have right now (since neither are up for election this year)... the previous senate (from 2004-2008: 23 Repub, 17 Dem) would have appointed/confirmed one or both (depending on the exact timing). So who doesn’t know what about particular state legislatures...?”
I did not say that I supported only a repeal of the 17th i also favor recall ability, something that could easily be accommodated by the same, simply have the the State legislator appoint a new senator.
I am also open to the idea of leaving it up to the State in how they select their senators just like Electors for president.
So that those that apposes this could have it their way too, honestly I don’t think we could prevent such as Organ demonstrated so I don’t really think any “special” provisions are necessary.
So basically all we are talking about is repeal the 17th and maybe a provision that specifically allows for the recall and replacement of Senators by means defined by State law. In the same means Term limits could be applied.
IMO, this should be the next mission of the Tea Party. The 27th Amendment silenced to voice of the State in federal government.
Sans the 17th, Obamacare never makes it to the floor of the Senate.
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.