This one is an NAACP Executive.
Posted on 08/13/2013 2:47:48 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Does P-Marlowe also favor repealing the 12th amendment so Mitt Romney will be Obama’s Vice President? The framers CLEARLY established that the runner up for President would become Vice President when they ratified the Constitution in 1788. According to the anti-17th amendment crowd, the framers were infallible when they set up the government, and we must NEVER EVER deviate from what the framers established. I guess “our Republic was destroyed” because we never got to have Vice President Gore in a Bush administration, Vice President Carter in a Reagan administration, etc, etc.
I didn't say the Framers were infallible. I said they were smarter than YOU.
I don't think you will find anyone on this forum who would say otherwise.
Uh, no. I have never promised anything of the sort. It is you who keeps assuming that I do.
The level of corruption was an epidemic.
Not true. It is what the progressives of the day repeated for decades, since the 1880s with the intent of destroying enumerated powers. Oh, and even if true, corruption is dealt with via statutes and not constitutional amendments. Sheesh.
With a hundred year track record, you can certainly defend the 17th, right? So tell me how popular election of senators has secured our rights and kept the national government within its constitutional box.
Societies make mistakes. The Leftist 17th Amendment you support is one of them.
What crocodile tears!!! What it will do is to restrict their ability to vote multiple times!
Obama/Holder tried pulling that crap here in Georgia...Georgia prevailed.
So did the passage of the twelfth amendment in 1804 destroy our Republic? Should we repeal it and get to what the framers had in mind in 1788? They must have been smarter than the people who came up with a different method of picking the Vice President years later, right?
Vice-President Goldwater under LBJ would’ve been a hoot. Vice-President McGovern under Nixon, not so much (though after a year a half of him as President with Nixon’s impeachment, he probably would’ve lost in ‘76 — although returned to VP).
Promoting fraudulent voting is an important goal for Democrats, or Hillary wouldn’t have brought it up so prominently yesterday, and Senator Hagan wouldn’t have seized on the issue to express her passionate conviction that non-citizens must continue to be allowed to vote in American elections.
Somehow the Democrats must find a way to make cheating at the voting booth COOL, or they won’t be able to continue to attract the critical illegal support they need to win elections now that states like North Carolina are cracking down on voting fraud. Maybe they can find some foreign-born celebrities whose visas ran out but continued to vote to lead ‘’Get-Out-The-Illegal-Vote!’’ drives as elections near.
Sorry, your argument for the 17th amendment lacks a good measure of reasoned thought.
Before the 17th amendment passage, we still had a strong constitutional republic. After passage, we lost our constitution and freedoms. We got gun control, abortion, restriction of private property and a dozen other attacks on our liberties.
If we had senators looking out for their states, we would have not seen the dissolution of the 9th and 10th amendments by the black-robed fascist courts over the past 100 years. Impeachment of justices would have happened.
I can’t agree with you; you need to to rethink your position and join us in the patriot movement.
The ironic thing is your beloved state legislatures overwhelmingly ratified it (only 8 states failed to do so, and only in a single state did the legislature explicitly vote it down), and it wouldn't have become the law of the land without them.
Oh, and that income tax amendment you say is as bad as the 17th? It was passed by state legislature appointed Senators, NOT popularly elected ones.
Ah, but that's precisely what you do with this foolishness.
"Not true. It is what the progressives of the day repeated for decades, since the 1880s with the intent of destroying enumerated powers. Oh, and even if true, corruption is dealt with via statutes and not constitutional amendments. Sheesh."
Sorry, but it is true. You're talking to a political historian here who knows the facts.
"With a hundred year track record, you can certainly defend the 17th, right? So tell me how popular election of senators has secured our rights and kept the national government within its constitutional box."
The hilarity here is that YOU want to entrust these same politicians with even more power... give them a blank check and absolute control over half the federal legislative branch. Given the choice of direct accountability to the people or a wink-wink-nudge-nudge "accountability" to their flunkies or puppetmasters (whichever way it goes) in the state capitols. Yeah, brilliant.
"Societies make mistakes. The Leftist 17th Amendment you support is one of them."
No, Jack, it's not a mistake. You keep repeating foolishness with the hope that if it's said enough times it will somehow be true. BTW, where's that list of great individuals that will populate that Senate of yours ? I guess you don't want Cruz or Paul or Lee. Interesting you keep refusing to acknowledge that.
Really? Half your fellow anti-17thers claim this happened in 1865, and Abraham Lincoln "destroyed our Republic". The other half of you claim we were a "storng constitutional Republic" in 1912. Your argument make more sense if the anti-17thers could get together in a room and agree on a unified talking about whether our Republic was "destroyed" in 1865 or 1913. Make up your minds.
>> We got gun control, abortion, restriction of private property and a dozen other attacks on our liberties. <<
Now you're blaming an amendment in 1913 for a bunch of legislation that didn't come up until the 60s and 70s. Liberals will blame the 2nd amendment on modern day school shootings, their argument doesn't have any more validity than yours.
You are arguing apples and oranges. I'm not interested in your idiotic analogies. The 17th Amendment basically destroyed the 10th Amendment and transferred all that State power to Washington.
Senators now represent themselves and the corporations that contribute to their re-election rather than the States to which they come from.
Previously Senators had to go before their State Legislatures every 6 years and beg for the opportunity to keep their jobs. Now all they need to do is to get enough American Idol viewers to think that they will bring them other people's money and give them goodies and they get themselves re-elected by the mob.
Senators now are beholden to low information voters and corporate sponsors. They routinely ignore the best interests of the States from which they hail.
Placing blame on this erosion on the 17th exclusively is absurd. The Senate was already corrupt by the 19th century and had been becoming moreso for decades. This was about direct accountability, plain and simple. Statesmen valiantly fighting for states rights was largely gone — it was ALL about power. You could make the argument that “looking out for the states” was effectively eviscerated with the Civil War.
Beg to keep their jobs ? Hell, by the latter half of the 19th century, they were bribing them. It was so audacious and without shame that a directly elected body was the only way to curb such open corruption of state legislators — and you want to go back to that ?
Spare me your ad hominem shrieking for someone who cares. I assure you, they have no effect.
I so hope you are nowhere near students.
Oh gee! That would be an unbiased investigation! /S
So, do you think they were smart to MAKE THE CONSTITUTION AMENDABLE so we could make changes if needed? Cause they did.
They were smarter than you.
I expose your fraud of a stance (again, WHERE is that list of names of Senators that would be serving in your magical Senate, ones defending states rights ?) and you act hysterically indignant. My query to students would be asking them the REAL reasons why the 17th was brought about (and again, ratified by the states, mind you) and how the members that served prior to it failed to live up to that Constitutional snuff you mentioned.
I’d also have them list what likely persons would serve in the Senate today (with repeal) based on the dynamics of the individual states. It would NOT be pretty.
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.