Posted on 05/12/2014 8:19:56 PM PDT by montag813
by Brian Hayes | Top Right News
The New Hampshire Senate spiked a bill making students who entered the country illegally eligible for in-state tuition rates at University System of New Hampshire schools
The Senate's action rejected the N.H. House that had passed the same bill earlier this year.
The move surprised some observers and showed how little influence pro-amnesty U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has over the upper house in her state. Ayotte had supported the bill.
(Excerpt) Read more at toprightnews.com ...
good
Makes no sense that foreign criminals get better college tuition rates than someone from the next state.
They passed a motion to support Arizona’s immigration law in 2012.
The NH senate won big in 2010 and will win big in 2014. So they still had a majority. The NH House is different.
Also the Governor is up for re-election every 2 years in Vermont and NH.
Kelly Ayotte is in big trouble. I would be content if Scott Brown beats Shaheen 51%-49% and Shaheen comes back an beats Ayotte in a better year for Dems in 2016.
But I hope Ayotte loses the primary. Hopefully some Democrats will vote against neocon Ayotte.
Ayotte:”illegals will get deported if they dont pay taxes”.
I mean the crossover Democrat primary voters maybe they will be sick of dimwit Ayotte and her neocon ways.
Ya freakin’ hoo!
They came to this country as an act of love.
LMAO..yup!..logic escapes me
I am genuinely surprised.
But...but... the anti-17thers have "informed" me that state legislatures are now completely powerless since the 17th amendment passed, and defer to whatever the federal government wants! As long as the 17th is in place, state governments would NEVER defy the feds.
You mean to tell me -- GASP -- the NH state legislature votes however they please and doesn't give a hoot what their U.S. Senators want?!!
Darn it, there goes reality again, interfering with the fantasy world of the anti-17thers.
At least there are some Americans who are not intimidated by the illegal aliens.
Every now and again, something goes right.
A unanimous vote, 24-0, to essentially table the bill.
And the chamber is only 13-11 Republican.
The bill had passed the rat controlled House.
I guess a pro-17th amendment person such as yourself can point to all of the beneficial aspects of the amendment since 1913? After all our constitution and our country has done so well since then.
You want to help him out here, Field? There can probably be dozens of examples since 1913 of patriotic conservatives who never would have gotten anywhere near the U.S. Senate if it were up to state legislatures to make that decision. Examples include Senator James Buckley (Conservative-NY), Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), etc., etc. It would be a cold day in hell before the state legislatures of those states ever appointed them Senator.
Durus, are you aware of WHY the 17th was enacted ? It had long ago ceased to be what you described. The Senate was filled with partisan hacks, bosses, rich guys buying seats representing individual special interests, everything BUT the “states.” The whole country knew what a joke it was by the 1910s and how completely out of touch that body was, and this was the only viable way to rectify the situation and make Senators accountable.
Are you kidding? How could you possibly know who would be appointed? Crystal ball? Complete spurious speculation without an iota of proof?
That is how it was sold to the American public. In reality however senators are no more accountable today then they were to legislatures, and 17th complete ignored the basic check and balance concept that the Senate was designed to represent the interest of the states, not the people.
It’s very easy to figure out if you pay close attention to the individual states, what party maintains the legislative majority and those in the power structure. Texas, for example, would be sending two RINOs to the Senate — Karl Rove (as a thank-you to Dubya, much in the same way that Ohio sent Mark Hanna as a thank-you to President McKinley) and David Dewhurst (as the sitting Lieutenant Governor, who pressured virtually the entire GOP caucus into endorsing him for the race over Ted Cruz — and thank heavens that the people and not the elitist politicians had final say over that race).
This is the reality of what a repeal would mean, and that doesn’t even begin to cover the rest of the states. Democrat states would send ultraleftist Stalinists and Republican states would send big government RINOs, each feeding at the trough trying to suck as much money as possible from the Feds (money that ain’t there). It would be a nightmare above and beyond anything currently there.
It was precisely that “check and balance” you cited that ended long before the repeal of the 17th. Senators were doing as THEY pleased, often to advance their own personal interests, not the states. The elections themselves were sideshows by the end of the 19th century. It wasn’t “sold” to the public, they could see what a joke it was with their own eyes and were demanding direct accountability to ending the corrupt practices.
The ideal of the Founding Fathers was to have said members serving the explicit interests of the states, and that they were to effectively serve at the pleasure of the given party or ideological majority of the state legislatures, and if they did not vote as asked, they were to gracefully step aside. Some members actually did just that, but only very early on, and then many more refused to give up their power or guaranteed terms and held on, regardless of how the legislatures wanted them to vote.
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.