But here in mother Russia, it gives ME exactly what I want. In America, you purge politicians. In Russia, politicians purge YOU! And if the politicians appointed by my cronies DON'T give me what I want, its off to the Gulag for them!
;-)
Posted on 03/20/2014 9:17:13 AM PDT by tcrlaf
Sadly, the Feds are too busy violating the Constitution to enforce it
Not all states are like yours, or Colorado, or Connecticut, or California, or New York, to name a few.
But as sanctuary cities go, the Feds have given tacit approval or they'd cut every dime of funding until they got back in line. Why the Feds might even secure the border. Maybe they'd remove the infringements they have heaped upon the RKBA.
But, frankly, until the people in our governments (at all levels) quit viewing the Constitution as an impediment instead of the supreme law of the land, that isn't going to improve.
So, why do you stay in Illinois?
Damn, I’m so conflicted. Why is it I respect Putin over our president?
Even the evil can present strength, who likes a woos?
“Wuss” not ‘woos’...my bad.
Putin’s a secret member of the Tea Party...
First thing you've said that I totally agree with (and it also explains why repealing the 17th amendment won't magically "restore our Republic" as long as state and local governments are run by corrupt scumbags that as bad OR worse than their federal counterparts)
First thing you've said that I totally agree with (and it also explains why repealing the 17th amendment won't magically "restore our Republic" as long as state and local governments are run by corrupt scumbags that are as bad OR worse than their federal counterparts)
Billyboy and I have been arguing against the “repeal the 17th” garbage forever.
I’ll keep it simple. Politicians electing politicians= retarded. Ultra mega turbo retarded. It will very obviously give you the opposite of what you want, which is a fantasy not compatible with the real world. It wasn’t even like that in the past, the disgusting corruption and inefficacy of the process is why the amendment was passed and ratified.
But here in mother Russia, it gives ME exactly what I want. In America, you purge politicians. In Russia, politicians purge YOU! And if the politicians appointed by my cronies DON'T give me what I want, its off to the Gulag for them!
;-)
As a spinoff, people would continue to be involved in their State level politics, when currently I doubt one person in 10 could tell you who their State (not Federal) Senator or Representative is.
But what was supposed to be a bottom up government has become very much top down, the power in this country was first and foremost supposed to be in the hands of the People. Idiots electing politicians isn't working out so well, either.
I have more respect for Putin and the Russians every day!!!
The much much more important distinction between the Senate and House than the manner of election was that each state has the same number of Senators regardless of population.
The people of each state are “the state” as much as the state government they elect. No need for a middle man unless you think the career politicians that run state legislatures are our betters.
Anyway, the most important point his that this scheme is a fantasy with zero chance of ever happening and if our side actually made it a major campaign issue it would be extremely unpopular wedge issue.
I agree. The main point of having two houses of Congress was that one body represented population interests, and the other body represented geographic interests (2 senators per state, regardless of how many people lived there).
Since these anti-17thers think state legislatures are soooo wonderful, maybe they could focus more effort on bringing back the system "the founders" used for the federal legislature to determine the makeup of state legislatures. The Illinois State Senate would be a hell of a lot less corrupt if Crook County got only 1 Senator out of 102, instead of 35 out of 59 like they have now.
The reason why we ended up with one elected house and one appointed house in the federal government wasn't because the founders all got together and realized that this brilliant system would ensure proper balance in our Republic and blah blah blah. Some of the founders felt the legislators should be all elected, some of them thought they should all be appointed, and neither side could get a majority of votes, so they compromised and came up with a 50/50 system that nobody was pleased with but they could all live with (the 3/5th compromise happened the same way... slave owners wanted slaves to be counted as regular parts of their population so they'd get lots more influence in the federal government, abolitionists didn't want slaves counted as all since the slave owners treated them like property and gave them NO rights in those states, so they compromised and decided each slave would be counted as "3/5th" of a person. That didn't make it an all-wise, all-knowing divine decree that nations that currently have slavery should emulate)
The way some of these anti-17thers talk about "the Founders" and "the Republic", I wonder if they passed Political Science 101 in college or a H.S. level government class. They certainly would have failed my senior year of H.S. government class if they wrote that a Republic is "a nation governed by the rule of law that guarantees the rights of individuals" rather than the correct definition, a sovereign self-governing nation without a king or royalty as head of state.
Reminds of liberals arrogantly going around saying that you "hate science and are too stupid to understand it" if don't agree with them about global warming, when they're the ones who can't understand basic scientific facts about embryonic and non-embryonic stem cell research (gosh, you mean we can get stem cells WITHOUT using embryos? I never knew that!)
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.