Posted on 04/14/2016 8:03:12 PM PDT by writer33
The recent spat in the Senate reminds me of Russia. On any given day it is hard to tell whether Russia is being run by an authoritarian or an outright dictator. Vladimir Putin fools few into believing Russia is a constitutional republic led by a freely elected President. Instead, Putin has changed the rules and exploited every loophole to defy his constitution to remain in power.
In America, we believe in term limits; our commander-in-chief is only permitted to rule for two four-year terms. Term limits prevent any one person from accumulating too much destructive power; in fact, term limits are protecting us right now from a third term of President Obama’s lawless and endless executive orders.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativereview.com ...
You feel like being dragged by the nose to this wall that Mexico will never pay for, feel free.
Heck, the Conservative Review can’t even take out Cruz, the Scourge of the Senate. How are they going to move Kentucky to take down the Turtle?
I didn’t know TRUMP was from Kentucky.
Oh, my fault. YOOOOU are from Kentucky. And, you want TRUMP to do your work for ya’ too?
Ya’ just need to fraud ya’ some delegates there in Kentucky, like Cruz does. Just ask him how to do it.
Leave Donald out of it. Trump wins straight up and straight out, so he can’t help you.
Got it.
> “Sorry friend - I think for myself.”
Wow, you sure know how to fool people!
“friend” eh? Funny that, reminds of the messages I get every day from the RNC of people calling me ‘friend’. Bunch of sad comics with their hands out wanting to get into my bank account.
Now they all suck - except for maybe Dole, Lott, Hatch, Collins, Christie.........those are the good guys.
Oh yeah, Schumer, Gillbrand, Pelosi and the DNC too. Great people doing great things for America. Every Conservative I know always donates to them. Palin says he's a winner don't cha know.
Forget about term limits.
If patriots were to exercise their voting muscle to “force” the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress to surrender 10th Amendment-protected state powers and associated state revenues that the feds have stolen from the states back to the states, then the states would probably need to start asking for volunteers to be senators.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. ...” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
“Something everyone can agree on.”
Well, maybe not Donald.
—
Why would the people of Kentucky want a rookie Senator - they have Sen. Mitch @McConnellPress who may be next Speaker & bring $’s to KY?
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 22, 2014
I have been saying for months “Please send McConnell back to Kentucky”.
I have sent letters to Kentucky newspapers asking for a recall.
I am so pleased to read this post.
Maybe I can see this happen.
He is the most worthless member in the US Senate.
LOL, yeah, politicians won’t make crappy selections. LLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.
It would get rid of McConnell though, cause dems have the KY House and they KY dems HATE him, they’d have put that witch Grimes in.
RINOS and dems would team up to elect RINOs to almost every Republican seat. Say goodbye to Cruz, you’d have RINO Dewhurst who was endorsed by most GOP legislators (he was the boss of the State Senate, you understand that, that’s what this would bring)
Say bye to to Mike Lee, Bob Bennett would have been safe. Thad Cochran would have won in a walk instead of nearly losing.
Remember Frist and Lott and Dole fondly? Of course not. We didn’t love the past leaders.
And we won’t love the next leader either, whoever he is and whenever he takes over, he will make compromises, some of them unacceptable, and many here will call him names, maybe including me.
If we want a FR style leader we’ll need a FR Style Republican Conference and that would mean primarying out most of the Senators. The leadership reflects the median of the conference, same thing in the House.
You couldn’t infer that for sure from my comment? Yes, I am very much against repealing it. It was passed for a very good reason (massive corruption and gridlock) and if I was alive then, I would have cheered it’s passage. Honestly, I don’t get how the idea of repealing it has become like some kind of panacea to supporters of that idea. I think it would have the exact opposite effect that supporters of the idea intend. Mark Levin? Sorry Mark, I gotta disagree.
Repealing it by the way is not on the table, and never will be. It would go over like a lead balloon in a serious debate.
Politicians, generally speaking, are scum, reducing the electorate for our extremely powerful US Senate to only politicians is therefore counterproductive and insane.
My state legislators are SWINE. They can have MY vote over my dead body, fRiend.
We call for the repeal of the 17th amendment, which will reverse the independence of the Senate and reestablish the Senate as a representative of the State governments, as intended by the Founding Fathers.
This arrangement was intended to be a critical check against illegal federal expansion over the States, and the people residing in the various States, and will act to return the powers not granted to the federal government, as enumerated in the Constitution, to the states.
--Jim Robinson
That’s lovely. I don’t agree. It will lead to more RINOs, not less.
Do you think it's a good idea?
It’s time to Preston Brooks the flabby necked old turdle.
I believe the founders made the constitution amendable for a damn good reason and were very wise to so. They didn’t know how everything would work out. They didn’t anticipate parties and thus the tied election of 1800 that led to the 12th amendment.
And I believe that many of them if still alive in the 20th century would have supported the 17th amendment after seeing the disgusting corruption. They were long dead so I can’t prove that and you can’t prove the opposite but they were intelligent men.
I also believe the important differences between the Senate and House were always
1)Equal suffrage per state (BY FAR the most important distinction)
2)The length of the term.
and that method of election was a distant third.
I’ll say again, William Delgado (D), and Cynthia Soto (D) can have my vote over my dead body.
The 17th amendment took this away from the states and gave the power to the parties instead.
The other difference was the lack of formal elections and the need for constant campaign fundraising, which boosted the power of the parties over the candidates who desperately needed their organization.
-PJ
Senators soon discovered that they could vote however they liked and still serve their entire term. And so they did.
As for fundraising, state legislators are just as beholden as the US House.
If what you want is for Senators to have to vote as instructed by a bunch of other politicians, you’d have to give the legislatures the ability to remove them at at will. I don’t like that idea a whole bunch. I don’t see how that makes anything better. I don’t see how state legislators are special creatures who favor liberty and hate federal power, I think that’s naive. The RINO ones are scum and the dem ones are pond scum, just like House members, just like Senators, just like local politicians.
All of that stuff went out the window in the early 19th century. The Senate never lasted as the body the Founders envisioned. As soon as the members discovered they had no LEGAL obligation to resign if they disagreed with the legislature’s instructions on how to vote, that was the end of the “vision.”
I’d add, too, that we’re really too populous a country now and should’ve been broken up into numerous smaller countries. Representation laid out in the Constitution was for a nation of 4 million, not for over 300 million. A Senator in 1789 was more like a State Senator for a county of a few hundred thousand today and for a Congressman, more on par with a State Representative or even a Councilmanic district.
I’ve said many times we need to change those who are eligible to vote. 18, for starters, is too young, and they have no proverbial skin in the game unless they’re active duty military. Those that receive any benefits not already paid in (via welfare or subsidies) have no business casting a vote. Those that work for the government or gov’t contractors receiving taxpayer money should not have a right to vote (military and law enforcement excluded).
Take it further, probably only those who have served in the military and own property (excluding those above) should be able to participate in voting. Removing the parasites and disruptors from the body politic would go a long way into restoring sanity to our government and would clear out a huge chunk of the left out of office.
In the end, voting should be a privilege, NOT a right.
Then, maybe, after you do that, you could repeal the 17th and attach it to a modifier of “serves at the leisure of the state legislature and subject to recall at any point.” But not before.
-PJ
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.