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 ...
I don't think that speculation is a good reason to have removed a fundamental check and balance when the result of the amendment could hardly be viewed as positive. Our freedoms have diminished greatly in the last 100 years, far more than they had in the previous 100 years, and this was certainly part of the problem.
We end up with a system where even the intent of checks and balances is removed, yet we a Senate that is more corrupt than it has ever been....yet some people still defend the 17th amendment. It's mind boggling.
I'm explicitly addressing what you would get with repeal NOW. Your side is fine with all these high-minded notions of what you BELIEVE would happen with a return to legislative elections without facing the bleak reality of the people that would be sent (and more importantly, whom would NOT be sent). You would not have Henry Clays or John C. Calhouns, you would have an execrable collection of left-wing RINOs and ultra-left-wing Democrats, almost completely insulated and unaccountable. Puppets or puppeteers, take your pick, all vigorously working to drain the treasury dry to get as much pork as possible for their states.
As bad as you think things are now, you have no idea how much worse they could be with repeal. The notion of empowering politicians even more than they are now is repugnant. If the Founding Fathers were around to see, I think they would agree. What they wanted in a Senate is not how it turned out in practice, and the 17th was the only way to correct the corrupted and decayed situation as best as could be done.
Explicitly we would regain an important check and balance, that the 17th Amendment didn't even bother to address. It's like it was written by complete buffoons who had never read the constitution and had no idea what it was trying to accomplish.
Your side is fine with all these high-minded notions of what you BELIEVE would happen with a return to legislative elections without facing the bleak reality of the people that would be sent (and more importantly, whom would NOT be sent). You would not have Henry Clays or John C. Calhouns, you would have an execrable collection of left-wing RINOs and ultra-left-wing Democrats, almost completely insulated and unaccountable.
My Side? I am only speaking for myself and only making a constitutional argument, I don't have an ideological premise other than that. You are the one making wild speculations as to the make up of the Senate, regardless have you looked at the make up of the Senate now? Can you honestly make a claim that they aren't puppets or puppeteers because they are directly elected? Could they possible spend more time trying to get more pork for their states? Repealing something that ignored a basic concept of the constitution in favor of some supposed harm that might be done, doesn't address the harm that has already been done, and that harm is historically obvious.
As bad as you think things are now, you have no idea how much worse they could be with repeal. The notion of empowering politicians even more than they are now is repugnant.
Pelosi, Boxer, Reid etc. could be worse? Sorry I beg to differ, the 17th amendment has created a far worse situation than we were ever in previously. Repealing it would bring back a vital check and balance and certainly doesn't empower Senators beyond the original intent of the constitution.
If the Founding Fathers were around to see, I think they would agree. What they wanted in a Senate is not how it turned out in practice, and the 17th was the only way to correct the corrupted and decayed situation as best as could be done.
What the founding father intended was that the states have representation in congress and the 17th broke that invalidating the entire concept of congress. You think they would really approve of that? If Thomas Jefferson's ghost appeared and asked "why would you even keep the senate if you were going to directly elect them, doesn't that make it just like the house? What about apportionment which was an important part of representation? Regardless Sir, what did your muddling get you? What are the fruits of your labors"" would you rethink your plainly broken axioms? For all of your histrionics about a "corrupt and decayed" situation, the 17th amendment was really just power play to increase the power of the Federal government at the expense of the States. As a result, 100 years later we are quickly becoming a police state, and our Senate is a cesspool of scum never even imagined in 1913.
If nothing else this should show anyone that the founders knew what they were doing and the 17th was a monumental blunder.
Your recovery of a "check and balance" would exist only on paper. In practice, it would be a fantasy. How would you have addressed the corruption going on in the Senate which snowballed throughout the latter half of the 19th century into the 20th ? What about the situations that occurred in Delaware which kept that state from even sending members to DC ?
"My Side? I am only speaking for myself and only making a constitutional argument, I don't have an ideological premise other than that."
Yes, your side. The small group of FReepers floating this same anti-17th flight of fancy, but refuse to deal with the reality of what that would entail today were it to occur. If you have an idea or notion about something and trot it out, you should consider what it would lead to. Now I'm sure you believe it would do all these wonderful things, but you're fooling yourself, because you're not weighing it against the political realities of the present time. As I tell the anti-17thers, what you want is a restoration of a Senate elected in 1789. Consider the realities of those that were participating in the political process then vs. now (or even vs the 1910s). In order to remotely restore a Senate that fits your notions of what it should be, you'd have to drastically alter the people participating in the electoral process. Personally, I don't think THAT would be a bad idea.
"You are the one making wild speculations as to the make up of the Senate, regardless have you looked at the make up of the Senate now?"
I'm not making wild speculations, I'm giving specific names based on the current dynamics and reality. You, however, have not given me any names (which is another problem with your side -- your Senators are nameless, fictional individuals that don't exist in our reality).
"Can you honestly make a claim that they aren't puppets or puppeteers because they are directly elected? Could they possible spend more time trying to get more pork for their states? Repealing something that ignored a basic concept of the constitution in favor of some supposed harm that might be done, doesn't address the harm that has already been done, and that harm is historically obvious."
My reply remains the same, yes, they can and will be worse. Every member now could be removed by being voted out of office by the people. You remove that option completely by repeal of the 17th, and in those states with heavily gerrymandered majorities (Dem), you guarantee the worst of the worst a job for perpetuity. You're empowering the political class.
"Pelosi, Boxer, Reid etc. could be worse? Sorry I beg to differ, the 17th amendment has created a far worse situation than we were ever in previously. Repealing it would bring back a vital check and balance and certainly doesn't empower Senators beyond the original intent of the constitution."
Pelosi is not a member of the Senate, but I'll tell you right now that she would easily make the transition, because with a hyper-Dem legislature in California, cancers like her would float to the top. Reid would also not have to worry, because the Dems have had a combined majority in the NV legislature for many years. Fortunately, the voters of NV can bypass that gerrymandered majority and elect Republicans.
"What the founding father intended was that the states have representation in congress and the 17th broke that invalidating the entire concept of congress."
Nope. It was the Senators that broke it. When their own personal agendas and power-seeking overtook their sense of duty to representing and protecting their state interests against growing federal encroachment, they destroyed what the Founding Fathers intended. It was already broke by the Civil War.
"You think they would really approve of that? If Thomas Jefferson's ghost appeared and asked "why would you even keep the senate if you were going to directly elect them, doesn't that make it just like the house? What about apportionment which was an important part of representation? Regardless Sir, what did your muddling get you? What are the fruits of your labors"" would you rethink your plainly broken axioms? For all of your histrionics about a "corrupt and decayed" situation, the 17th amendment was really just power play to increase the power of the Federal government at the expense of the States. As a result, 100 years later we are quickly becoming a police state, and our Senate is a cesspool of scum never even imagined in 1913."
My histrionics ? You cannot get back what was broken long before the 17th unless you are prepared to fundamentally transform and return the country to what it was 200 years ago and allowing only that certain class of individuals to participate in the decisionmaking process.
"If nothing else this should show anyone that the founders knew what they were doing and the 17th was a monumental blunder."
The blunder was not seeing men corrupting the system early on long before the 17th was on the horizon. That thing about power corrupting, y'know...
The founders knew what they were doing when they made the constitution amendable.
They also knew what they were doing when they created a system of check and balances and a congress made of directly elected congressmen, and a Senate appointed by the state. The 17th amendment ignores both in a blatant power grab.
It was changed for good reason because it was working badly. Massive corruption and drawn out battles that left seats empty. And it would be much worse today. Politicians are scum, I’ll make my own choice of Senator thank you very much.
Magic time warp to an idealized version of the past is not the answer to America’s problems.
It would exist in observable reality. The Senate would be appointed by the state. The House would represent the people. That IS a very real check and balance, not a fantasy, regardless if you agree or not. Your continuous claims to corruption of the Senate before the 17th amendment compared to today is completely erroneous and absurd. It is hard to recall a worse den of thieves that have been directly elected to the Senate (or congress) then what we have now, and it certainly didn't exist prior to 1913. As to your horrible "situation" of Delaware not sending a delegation to the Senate do you really think the world is going to end if some state can't get it's act together enough to send members? It's their representation, it's up to them to send them or not. Regardless it rarely happened, although it is constantly held up as a shining example of why we "had" to get rid of state representation although it makes absolutely no sense at all.
Yes, your side. The small group of FReepers floating this same anti-17th flight of fancy, but refuse to deal with the reality of what that would entail today were it to occur. If you have an idea or notion about something and trot it out, you should consider what it would lead to. Now I'm sure you believe it would do all these wonderful things, but you're fooling yourself, because you're not weighing it against the political realities of the present time. As I tell the anti-17thers, what you want is a restoration of a Senate elected in 1789. Consider the realities of those that were participating in the political process then vs. now (or even vs the 1910s). In order to remotely restore a Senate that fits your notions of what it should be, you'd have to drastically alter the people participating in the electoral process. Personally, I don't think THAT would be a bad idea.
Flight of fancy? The 17th amendment has altered the republic for the worse and it completely changed the concept of congress to something completely irrational and not in step with the rest of the constitution. Do you really think you can rationalize that our nation is better off now than in 1913? Any speculation about who the states would or would not send to the senate is hypothetical, however, the republican party would have controlled the senate more often than it has historically, and it would be controlling it now based on pure numbers. Regardless your characterization of my intent is incorrect. While it would be nice to have a pure as driven snow, selfless Senate filled with genius statesmen, that isn't a rational desire. My intent is restore reason to the concept of congress by restoring representation to the states, and putting back in place a real check and balance to the ever increasing power of the federal government.
Any rational person with a knowledge of the constitution and intent of the founder wouldn't support the 17th amendment.
I'm not making wild speculations, I'm giving specific names based on the current dynamics and reality. You, however, have not given me any names (which is another problem with your side -- your Senators are nameless, fictional individuals that don't exist in our reality).
You are making wild speculation. You don't know enough about every state legislature to know who would and would be sent. That you think you do demonstrates your irrationality. Can I give names? Of course I can't as it's unknowable but if I wanted to simply makes some names up they would be just as plausible as yours.
My reply remains the same, yes, they can and will be worse. Every member now could be removed by being voted out of office by the people. You remove that option completely by repeal of the 17th, and in those states with heavily gerrymandered majorities (Dem), you guarantee the worst of the worst a job for perpetuity. You're empowering the political class.>br>
Just like any member might not be sent back by the State legislature. The legislature didn't appoint Senetors for life after all...unlike the current incumbency we are seeing in the Senate now. Cdertainly you aren't suggesting that prior to 1913 people held Senate office longer Senators after the 17th amendment. That isn't historically accurate at all. Further gerrymandering applies just as much if not more to direct elections.
Pelosi is not a member of the Senate, but I'll tell you right now that she would easily make the transition, because with a hyper-Dem legislature in California, cancers like her would float to the top. Reid would also not have to worry, because the Dems have had a combined majority in the NV legislature for many years. Fortunately, the voters of NV can bypass that gerrymandered majority and elect Republicans.
Pelosi is a member of the house that is elected the same way as Senators and is as dirty as anyone that has ever held office. Reid has lied, bribed, taken kick backs, and overtly cheated at elections. One can go on and on about the scum that fills congress and it makes the pre-17th amendment congress look like children that occasionally stole an extra cookie from the cookie jar. Could NV directly elect a senator that isn't a Democrat? Sure. Will it? Hell no, and that is a very important point. If a state leans Democrat then it's representation can be Democrat. My desire isn't that anyone of any party not be able to elect or appoint who it wants. My point is that without the state having representation you might as well just have a house or representatives and call it a day.
Nope. It was the Senators that broke it. When their own personal agendas and power-seeking overtook their sense of duty to representing and protecting their state interests against growing federal encroachment, they destroyed what the Founding Fathers intended. It was already broke by the Civil War.
BS. It was "progressive" media like Hearst and Politicians like Roosevelt making a mountain over molehills that made the 17th amendment possible, it was a jaded perversion of our constitution, that fundamentally altered balance of power between the Fed and the States. Not to mention the direct contravention of article V of the Constitution.
My histrionics ? You cannot get back what was broken long before the 17th unless you are prepared to fundamentally transform and return the country to what it was 200 years ago and allowing only that certain class of individuals to participate in the decision making process.
Repealing the 17th amendment is good enough start.
The blunder was not seeing men corrupting the system early on long before the 17th was on the horizon. That thing about power corrupting, y'know...
The corruption then doesn't hold a candle to the corruption now, so as the 17th was a monumental failure let's get rid of it.
WTF does the 17th amendment have to do with Pelosi?
Newsflash, she is elected by a house congressional district's voters.
Your idea of giving away my vote to the Maryland state legislature, both houses heavily Dem, does nothing for me.
We have can have little or no idea how that would work out in the long run, and there is no guarantee that the GOP will hold on to the purple states that they have control of now in the next 10 years or so.
“The grass always looks greener on the other side”
The Senate sure looks like a bunch of rich elitist whores which is stirring these fantasies, but this is just a pipe dream going no-where, will never happen
And please refrain from the “It (having no 17th) worked great in 1800 so it would work great now too”. I am not one of Marks drones.
Krystal Ball is a commentator on MSNBC’s The Cycle.
I know BillyBoy didn't hear it from her.
"It would exist in observable reality. The Senate would be appointed by the state."
A state's legislature, which itself may not reflect the electorate in its makeup. Not a "state." You see, this is the problem here. You equate the legislature as being "the state" while I argue the state is itself, the people. In this case, the people at large.
"The House would represent the people. That IS a very real check and balance, not a fantasy, regardless if you agree or not."
The Senate is to check and balance the House, ideally.
"Your continuous claims to corruption of the Senate before the 17th amendment compared to today is completely erroneous and absurd."
Except that it happened, and often that was merely in how they managed to obtain election.
"It is hard to recall a worse den of thieves that have been directly elected to the Senate (or congress) then what we have now, and it certainly didn't exist prior to 1913."
Corruption then, corruption now. Go back to the Gilded Age and see how well regarded the Senate was.
"As to your horrible "situation" of Delaware not sending a delegation to the Senate do you really think the world is going to end if some state can't get it's act together enough to send members? It's their representation, it's up to them to send them or not. Regardless it rarely happened, although it is constantly held up as a shining example of why we "had" to get rid of state representation although it makes absolutely no sense at all."
You attached the modifier of "horrible." For the people of Delaware, it would certainly be a situation of import. With the people deciding their Senators, such a situation would not occur. This is another example of your definition of legislature equaling state.
"Flight of fancy? The 17th amendment has altered the republic for the worse and it completely changed the concept of congress to something completely irrational and not in step with the rest of the constitution."
So now you firmly put yourself in the camp of the 17th as the root of all evil where the last 100 years of this country is concerned. This is where you guys totally go off your proverbial rockers. It's pure silliness.
"Do you really think you can rationalize that our nation is better off now than in 1913?"
That is such a sweeping generalization of a query that it cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, but you want to tie it back to the "17th is the root of all evil."
"Any speculation about who the states would or would not send to the senate is hypothetical, however, the republican party would have controlled the senate more often than it has historically,"
After the 1920s, the GOP only occasionally held a majority of legislatures, and they would've mostly been in the minority. Not until the 1990s did they begin to show strength again for any elongated period, but in many states, they would be as shut out, and for perpetuity, as many Southern states used to be. To wit: for our Dem states, there would've been no GOP Senators as follows (CA-1960s, CT-early '70s, HI-pre-statehood, IL-'70s, MD-1890s, MA-1956, MN-pre '70s, NV-pre '80s, NJ-'90s, NM-1928, NY-1970, RI-1928/30, VT-1970, WV-1928), again just a few examples off the top of my head. I've analyzed the numbers elsewhere from time to time. Even those states that would send Republicans, what would pass for them would certainly be of the King Pork/Big gubmint/left-wing vintage. Especially now.
"and it would be controlling it now based on pure numbers. Regardless your characterization of my intent is incorrect. While it would be nice to have a pure as driven snow, selfless Senate filled with genius statesmen, that isn't a rational desire. My intent is restore reason to the concept of congress by restoring representation to the states, and putting back in place a real check and balance to the ever increasing power of the federal government."
You're not going to get a check and balance on the increasing power of the federal government with repeal, which is the main tenet of your argument. That frankly went out the window with the Civil War, long before the 17th.
"Any rational person with a knowledge of the constitution and intent of the founder wouldn't support the 17th amendment."
And yet this one does, because you leave out one enormous element: how it works. The Constitution was written for the express purpose of providing an amendment process. For things not covered at the time, or for things enacted and found unworkable. As I have cited, the Senate as a body was corrupted in the 19th century. The method by which Senators were elected became simply untenable. It didn't work anymore, and something had to be done about it.
"You are making wild speculation. You don't know enough about every state legislature to know who would and would be sent. That you think you do demonstrates your irrationality. Can I give names? Of course I can't as it's unknowable but if I wanted to simply makes some names up they would be just as plausible as yours."
Again, I'm knowledgeable enough about all of our states that I can indeed tell you the likely players. See, that is what I have spent years studying (and still do every day with each election). You take umbrage and utterly dismiss that I can, at will, give those names. Any state you name and I'll likely be able to tell you precisely whom the Senate would send with repeal. This again remains an enormous blind spot, willful naivete, on the subject at hand where your side is concerned. Some dismiss this entirely with the argument that they could care less who would sit in the Senate with repeal, so long as it is repealed. That it would essentially lack for any Conservatives doesn't matter. Well, it matters. We've already gifted the left enough, and this would be the cherry on top.
"Just like any member might not be sent back by the State legislature. The legislature didn't appoint Senetors for life after all...unlike the current incumbency we are seeing in the Senate now."
Early on, very early on, they did not. But the earliest Senators tried to abide by the Constitutional prescription and were fiercely loyal to their states. That went out the window before long, as I already outlined. Some states with single-party majorities for perpetuity started sending some members for ever increasing periods of time. When Missouri and Alabama were Jacksonian states, they sent two men for decades (Thomas Hart Benton and William Rufus de Vane King), and this was prior to the Civil War. Afterwards, in heavy GOP states, you had a similar situation of members occupying Senate seats for decades (with one member from Vermont staying in office in both bodies from prior to the Civil War up until his death before the turn of the century). Only in some states with a strong two-party system did you have an aggressive turnover, but the downside for those Senators is that they ended up having the least amount of power in contrast to the others.
"Certainly you aren't suggesting that prior to 1913 people held Senate office longer Senators after the 17th amendment."
As I wrote above, you did indeed have some Senators serving long stretches, protected by one-party states. Unless you consider one member serving, with only one brief interruption when he was an Ambassador, from 1819 to 1852 (King) as a "short time" or from 1821 to 1851 (Benton), or other 2 and 3 decade members. Curious the Founding Fathers didn't tackle the concept of term limits. I doubt they could've imagined the audacity of a person to agreeing to serve for decades on end in office, but that went on during your pre-17th Era of Utopia.
"That isn't historically accurate at all. Further gerrymandering applies just as much if not more to direct elections."
Well, that argument of yours just got obliterated.
"Pelosi is a member of the house that is elected the same way as Senators and is as dirty as anyone that has ever held office."
She's not elected statewide, but from an extremist one-party district in a heavily gerrymandered Dem state. She would obtain power in the exact manner that a CA Dem Senator would with repeal (you're actually making my point). Because California has not had a legislature made up of a GOP majority since Ronald Reagan was in his first term as Governor (roughly around 1967-69), that would've been the last time the GOP would've had any viable input. Indeed, you'd have Jerry Brown as the senior Senator today, ensconced in that body since he ran for it in 1982 hot off his failed two term disaster as Governor. The junior Senator would be none other than King Willie Brown, as a reward for his tenure as the dictatorial Speaker, stymieing the agendas of Govs. Deukmejian and Wilson. Boxer or Feinstein, well, they might take the next available opening, but let's face it, what would really be the difference ? Two screeching harpy moonbat females or two moonbat males ? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Then again, with members of the legislature shameless running arms, Brown & Brown might be too sedate and "moderate" for that Stalinist hellhole.
"Reid has lied, bribed, taken kick backs, and overtly cheated at elections."
Of course, and he'd have also never have lost an election going back to 1974 when he first ran for the Senate. The Dem majority in the legislature would've sent him over ex-Gov. Paul Laxalt, a Conservative and the choice of the people, and that would've been that. You'd have gifted him 12 more years to wreak havoc nationwide. Even when the GOP has held narrow majorities in the State Senate, Reid has always managed to get the RINO contingent there to aid him, so no worries for him on the off chance they managed to try to oust him via a repeal.
"One can go on and on about the scum that fills congress and it makes the pre-17th amendment congress look like children that occasionally stole an extra cookie from the cookie jar."
One could. One could also imagine how much less those elitist Senators would have to worry about rolling the people every 6 years when they can just go back to the old way of bribery and threats of the legs. What fun.
"Could NV directly elect a senator that isn't a Democrat? Sure. Will it? Hell no, and that is a very important point. If a state leans Democrat then it's representation can be Democrat."
The point being that the corrupted and gerrymandered legislature of Nevada has the people (the state) themselves telling them they will send a Republican. It works out better that way. Now if only something could be done about the crooked cretins of Carson City like the Stalinists of Sacramento...
"My desire isn't that anyone of any party not be able to elect or appoint who it wants. My point is that without the state having representation you might as well just have a house or representatives and call it a day."
And again, you equate legislature with the state. I, as I have said endlessly, do not.
"BS. It was "progressive" media like Hearst and Politicians like Roosevelt making a mountain over molehills that made the 17th amendment possible, it was a jaded perversion of our constitution, that fundamentally altered balance of power between the Fed and the States. Not to mention the direct contravention of article V of the Constitution."
Rosebud ! By George, if it hadn't been for them meddling muckrakers and pesky Progs, we'd still have our great Senate today and everything would be sunshine and lollipops. Ignore all evidence that the Senators and their behavior (nevermind the corrupt legs) brought it all on themselves going back to the 19th century.
"Repealing the 17th amendment is good enough start."
What a horrid notion ! Who in their right mind would want to empower politicians at a time when they and their other allies in arms in blowing up the size and scope of gubmint beyond all proportion need to be STRIPPED of their powers ?
"The corruption then doesn't hold a candle to the corruption now, so as the 17th was a monumental failure let's get rid of it."
Yay ! Let's substitute one corruption for another. What do we gain ? Nothing ! When do we want it ? Now ! Sorry, Durus, it's a valiant effort, but very lame in the end.
Durus, DJ is corect that you can’t take the current legislature of a state as a proxy for the state itself. Remember how North Carolina elected Jesse Helms to the Senate in 1972 and reelected him in 1978, 1984, 1990 and 1996? Well, had Senate elections in NC been held in the state legislature, instead of allowing the citizens of NC to vote, Helms never would have come close to election, as the NC state legislature was dominated by the Democrats from the 1870s until 2011 (except for a brief interregnum after the 1894 elections in which a coalition of Republicans and Populists controlled the legislature), so NC would have continued to send liberal Democrats to the Senate to this day. Thanks to the 17th Amendment, the people of North Carolina, and not the Democrat politicians in the state legislature, have been able to decide who should represent the state in the U.S. Senate, and all Americans benefited from having the great Jesse Helms as the conservative lion of the Senate. With no 17th Anendment, Helms would have had to remain as a broadcaster for the Tobacco Radio Network instead of representing the people of his state in the U.S. Senate.
I could just as easily say that without the 17th amendment there wouldn't have been a depression, No Social Security, no prohibition, no rise of organized crime, no NFA, No ATF, No FBI, No rise of the welfare state, and the end result would have been the utter destruction of the Democrat party. Do I really think that all would have happened? Probably not, no...but at least it's somewhat plausible, unlike suggesting that if a law hadn't been passed in 1913 then a guy in 1972 might not have been appointed.
It's absurd to suggest that if the 17th amendment hadn't passed then absolutely everything that followed would be exactly the same, leading to the exact same political compositions of states legislatures and the exact same people running for office.
You’re a very silly person. It is pointless to continue this discussion if you believe that the Democrat legislature in North Carolina would have elected Jesse Helms to the Senate five times.
getting rid of party lines on the ballot is a bigger deal and worthwhile goal than Am17 .... then the state capitols are less likely to control the state capitols. THe California topTwo primary thing would be great for CT
“THe California topTwo primary thing would be great for CT”
Besides, it is my opinion that a jungle-primary system, whether in the Louisiana style or the California style (the only differences between the two being that in LA (congressional) elections all candidates are listed in the general, and only if no one gets 50%+1 is there a run-off, several weeks later, between the top-two finishers, while in CA elections all candidates are listed in the primary, and even if someone gets over 50% there still is a general between the top-two), is unconstitutional, since it does not permit the citizens who, pursuant to the First Amendment, freely associated with each other to form a political party, from presenting their standard-bearer for election without members of other parties having a say on the matter.
under equal protection 14th .... candidates without a party are at a disadvantage. Candidates with a party endorsement should not have that party listed on the ballot. Any more than the NRA can list all their candidates on the ballot.
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.
