Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: caseinpoint

I think there’s probably an old 17th amendment thread somewhere here. You’re right that the 17th amendment affects the election of senators, not reps. I think that states cannot currently choose to place term limits on reps, and they definitely cannot for senators (though before, they could as the method for choosing senators used to be up to the states). A repeal of the 17th amendment could also expressly reserve a right for states to limit terms of reps. I am not necessarily a fan of term limits, per se, btw. Just thought I’d throw that out there, though I do think think the 17th amendment needs to be repealed for other reasons (senators were supposed to represent the state governments, not the general population of the states; now state governments have no representation in the federal government which, consequently, is not a true federal government anymore).


160 posted on 09/25/2008 5:33:51 PM PDT by Ilya Mourometz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies ]


To: Ilya Mourometz

I agree with your statements about senators, especially coming from a state which has some very liberal, female senators. I remember the election when Barbara Boxer won her seat in the senate. We had just inked the deal to buy a home in her fair state after my husband’s company transferred us here. Her acceptance speech made it clear that she considered herself primarily a senator for women. I remember thinking, what about all the other voters and non-voters who don’t happen to be liberal women? Who will represent us? And she has held to her promise there, by the way. States ought to be represented in the senate but I don’t know that such a change will really make that much difference in a state that is dominated, as ours is, by one party so much of the time. What Repubs we have in office tend to be RINOs, like our esteemed governator.


168 posted on 09/25/2008 5:39:28 PM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

To: Ilya Mourometz

Should have mentioned something else. Much of the problem is that the feds are dealing with matters far beyond the scope of what the founding fathers intended, thanks to some creative interpretations of the Commerce Clause, among other provisions. It would take a real housecleaning to get the feds to back off their usurpation of states’ rights and peoples’ rights to really make a difference.


177 posted on 09/25/2008 5:44:14 PM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson