To Avoid Debacles Like Roy Moore, Repeal The 17th Amendment

The Federalist ^ | November 16, 2017 | John Daniel Davidson

[Spruce]

Repeal the 17th amendment and legalize dueling. Then we will have our checks and balances back

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

☑

[vortec94]

And I thought I was alone all these years!

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

And do not forget, the nature of the Dems and the Globohomo Elites as well.

[PCPOET7]

if the left wants to go back to the legislator electing senators and house reps I have no problem but If you look at state houses 3/4 of them are conservative republicans and there are a lot less rinos in state government then DC. this would end the democratic party in all areas of the country but California Maryland Virginia massachussess along with new York city and other big city governments.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Before the 17th Amendment, Senators could be pressured to resign, just like now, but there is no recall provision in the Constitution. Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendment that repeals the 17th Amendment includes a recall provision in which a state legislature could recall a Senator by a 2/3 vote.

[Lurker]

“Please post your view of the effects of the 19th Amendment.”

A few more:

Maxine Waters
Sheila Jackson Lee
Tammy Duckworth
Debbie Stabenow
Barbara Mikuslki
Madeline Albright.

I rest my case.

L

[Architect of Avalon]

Yes.

[Bryan24]

Roy Moore doesn’t need defending. His accusers need to prove their accusations.

There is a reason why we have a Statute of Limitations on crimes.

Did you know that even in the Bible, accusers had rules to go by? Deuteronomy 19:15 “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.”

Jesus reiterated that law in Matthew 18:15-16 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that ‘BY THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES EVERY FACT MAY BE CONFIRMED’.”

These women had 38 years to go to Moore and get him to repent. They had whatever the Statute of Limitations was to report their accusations.

The burden of proof is not on Moore, it is on the accusers. If they produce the evidence, fine. Throw him under the jail and discredit him for life. If they can’t, well, they know they have tried to ruin the reputation of a man for political purposes. The yearbook woman has already been shown to be a fraud.

Moore can be unhinged on some issues. Yeah, I know, the Ten Commandments fiasco is example #1. However, no one deserves to have their career and reputation finished based on malicious lies.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

That would not change a thing. Not one state or territory would stop women from voting.

[Olog-hai]

I doubt I did. People like Theodore Roosevelt were voted in prior to both 17^th and 19^th Amendments. All has to do with individual character (which influences national character), regardless of sex of voter. Not to mention, my mother unfailingly votes for conservative candidates, and I do take umbrage at any implication that she would not and any claim that she needs to have enfranchisement removed from her based on an assumption that she would vote left-wing merely because of her sex.

Although Hillary was voted in as a New York Senator (a symptom of the 17^th more than 19^th), she was not voted into her bureaucracy positions. And there is still an argument that those bureaucracy positions are unconstitutional in nature anyhow.

[Lurker]

“Yes”

I’ve got more if you like:

Ruth Ginsburg
Sandra Day O’Conner

That should about do it. Don’t you agree?

Best,

L

[Stosh]

I’m all for repealing the 17th amendment, but all need to be aware there would be a real downside: in deep blue states, the quality of the Senators would likely be abysmal - I could see here in Illinois having the state represented by the likes of Rod Blagojevich and Jesse Jackson Junior. Of course we’ve already had Dickhead Durbin and Barack Hussein Obama, so maybe it wouldn’t be that different.

[fortheDeclaration]

We should repeal the 17th Amendment, but it has nothing to do with Moore.

[Architect of Avalon]

You have presented an indisputable case.

[Lurker]

I’m of the opinion that the Founding Fathers were correct on this matter.

And I believe that history bears this out, your sainted mother notwithstanding.

Best,

L

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

☑

[Lurker]

“You have presented an indisputable case.”

Thank you.

Best,

L

[Lisbon1940]

I ran across this possibly relevant tidbit while researching a client’s genealogy.

In November 1903, just two weeks following the re-election by the California legislature of George Clement Perkins to the U.S. Senate, Perkins suddenly reversed his position on the Cuban Reciprocity Treaty, which was opposed by state agricultural interests.

The Legislature passed a resolution “instructing” Senator Perkins to oppose the treaty, though my client’s ancestor proposed stronger language “demanding” a no vote. Perkins voted yes and cheap Cuban sugar proceeded to flood the American market.

Just an illustration of what life was like in the days before the 17th Amendment.

[Olog-hai]

Well, as far as that goes, the Founding Fathers did not address the matter of enfranchisement, but left that up to the states. Writing Constitutional amendments on the matter of course is another power grab from the states, which would make the 19^th Amendment in particular an attack on the 10^th Amendment and its language that whatever is not enumerated in the Constitutional articles in terms of federal power belongs to the states and the people. This is a serious contradiction in the Constitution.