2 I support recall of senators IF they are state appointed. An amendment is required.
3 You choose to remain ignorant of the history of democratic republics. BTW, the proper word is "rein," not "reign." No, the House was designed to represent the people and should be popularly elected. Consent of the people, as represented in the House is fundamental to republics. Entirely democratic legislatures are certain to lead to tyranny, the face of which is Obama.
4 I don't recall when I figured out the framers got it right.
5 The pre-17th Senate far better secured the un-enumerated powers that remained with the states. That was a stupid question, even for you.
6 Yes.
You boys are hung up on the virtue, or lack thereof, of individual politicians. The framer's system was designed to minimize the fact that men are not angels. Rule of law v. rule of man, get it? For a trio of self-style historians who claim to "know facts" you really don't know jack.
Oh, and 16th, 17th amendments were the progressive's wet dream. Without them, the explosion in government, New Deal, Great Society, Obamacare would have been impossible. If you think "Government exists to do what people cannot do for themselves," you are not grounded in our history, but are pure progressive. Congratulations.
I was going to suggest you take a trip through The Federalist. Don't bother.
Until the next thread, Ciao'.
Jackie, weren’t you the one that said that Lindsey Graham would be “forced” to be a better Senator with the repeal of the 17th ?
As to the claim that had the 17th never been enacted that all the big gubmint initiatives of the 20th century would never have passed the Senate, that is ludicrous speculation of the completely unsubstantiated sort. The Democrats would’ve had hyper-majorities in that body (indeed, in the ‘30s, it’s quite likely the Republicans would’ve had 10 seats out of 96) and FDR would’ve had carte blanche to do his worst. Same goes for the 1960s. After the 1930 midterms, the GOP was largely a non-entity for control of state legislatures nationwide (and even in states with Democrat control where you might’ve had a Conservative contingent, there would’ve been enormous pressure to send fiscal liberals — such as in MS that sent Theodore Bilbo, a bigtime New Dealer and rabid racist).
You make all these assumptions and presumptions and do so without a close study of the ACTUAL political dynamics. That is dangerously ignorant. You’ve already had your myth debunked repeatedly on these points, yet you keep pounding the dead horse like a drum. The kind of people that you believe would get elected under your ideal has no beating to what would be elected in the reality. Therein lies your central problems with this ill-advised initiative on behalf of yourself and your fellow Levinists.
The intent of the founders was that the runner up who receives the second highest number of votes would become Vice President and serve as a "President in training", learning the ropes and being the heir appaerent to succeed the President. This is how it worked during Washington/Adams adminstration. Amending the Constitution so the runner up in electoral votes gets jack squat INSTEAD of the second highest office in government and stays a heartbeat away from the Presidency ISN'T a radical change to you? It's a minor change that Harry Truman became FDR's Vice President instead of Tom Dewey, or that Dick Cheney became George W. Bush's Vice President instead of Al Gore? There was no radical change in history when Lyndon Johnson was JFK's Vice President in 1963 instead of Richard Nixon? Your argument doesn't hold water.
>> 2 I support recall of senators IF they are state appointed. An amendment is required. <<
Recall, in any form, originated during the "progressive era" from 1913-1917. According to anti-17thers, ANYTHING passed during the progressive era is AUTOMATICALLY evil and MUST be purged from American government to "Save our Republic". The mere fact the 17th was passed during that time period is continually used by your side as proof that is more evil than other amendment and ruined America. Yet when it comes to recall, you argue AGAINST your OWN position and are all for using a progressive-era method to remove corrupt federal government officials, rather than the method that the founders intended and established (impeachment). Furthermore, the framers considered the option of allowing recall on the federal level, and specifically rejected it, so by amending the constitution, you claim your plan would work better than theirs, something you chastise people who support the 17th amendment for. Sorry, your arguements don't hold water as long as you break your own rules.
>> 3 You choose to remain ignorant of the history of democratic republics. BTW, the proper word is "rein," not "reign." No, the House was designed to represent the people and should be popularly elected. Consent of the people, as represented in the House is fundamental to republics. Entirely democratic legislatures are certain to lead to tyranny, the face of which is Obama. <<
Wow, a Levin fan admits that America is a DEMOCRATIC Republic, not just "a Republic" where all forms of democracy are pure evil. I'm impressed by your candor. So consent of the people is fundamental in the lower house, but tyranny in the upper house? Tell me, what magical force makes popularly elected people in the lower house function in a better way than popularly elected people in the upper house? You do realize they came up with this method as a compromise because some of the framers wanted an all-elected body and some wanted an all-appointed body, right? If it was the other way around, and the House was appointed by politicians but the Senate elected by the people, would it also mean the death of our Republic?
>> 4 I don't recall when I figured out the framers got it right. <<
Could it be when the all-wise and all-knowing infalliable Consitutional deity Mark Levin informed you of this "fact"?
>> 5 The pre-17th Senate far better secured the un-enumerated powers that remained with the states. That was a stupid question, even for you. <<
Dodging the question completely. I didn't ask about ALL Senators who served from 1789-1912, I asked specifically if the government appointed U.S. Senate as a collective body in 1913, consisted of a body of wise elder statesmen who represented the best interests of their states and understood federalism and upheld the separation of powers. If your answer is "yes", I would reply that every historian on the planet disagrees with you, and I suggest you read a history book to find out how the 1912-1913 Senate class actually governed.
>> Are you a Mark Levin fan?<< >> 6 Yes. <<
Perhaps the lone refreshingly honest answer from you, aside from admitting America is a Democratic Republic and not simply a "Republic".