It kind of redefines where battleground states are huh? Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, Iowa, New York, and Delaware. There are also some close states, such as Colorado (The Dems have a +1 majority).
Posted on 05/30/2005 5:58:31 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Are you reading the US Constitution, or some other document?
California Gov. Davis was recalled. And here is an article posted on the FR about recalling McCain. So if the people can do it, I dont see why the state legislatures couldnt.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b25a06e60b6.htm
Gray Davis was the Governor of a state. California law allows for the recall of state officials. It has not yet become part of the US Constitution.
Senators are picked for one term of 6 years. They then serve under the rules of the United States, not any particular state.
The state reps and senators actually still have a lot of clout, at least here in Mass. They reigned in one Rep. Meehan a few years ago when he openly discussed his intention to run for Governor. Shortly after, new districts were offered which would have effectively ended his career in Congress.
If indeed Mass. does lose two seats in Congress after the next census there is going to be a lot of cowering up on Be-A-Con Hill.
An interesting and educational thread. Thank you for posting it.
I have a question. The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, if I understand correctly, guarantees that all are equal before the law. How else is this essential type of equality guaranteed by our Constitution? Or, was that left up to the States?
Probably it was the second senator to do that -- John F. Kennedy -- who really started the flood, but prior to 1914 people recognized that being elected or serving as a senator wasn't especially good practice for being president. Afterwards, senatorial races were recognized as run-ups to presidential campaigns. And Senators earn their reputation from statesmanship or orator as Webster and Clay did, but from personal magnetism, vote-winning power, and getting their name on legislation that might be unnecessary or harmful.
And over time, it meant that senators came to look at things more from the point of view as potential presidents, rather than as local representatives. It didn't happen all at once, though. Through much of the 20th century, senators were still concerned mostly with local issues (segregation and military bases for Southerners, water projects for Westerners, housing and labor legislation for Easterners). Kennedy and TV had a lot to do with the change, but whether direct election was the cause of government becoming more centralized in Washington, or a result of it is something to argue about.
People are right in pointing out that direct election didn't do one important thing it was supposed to do -- eliminate corruption. But then they seem to argue that it created greater corruption and that going back would clean up the Senate. As you say, the 17th amendment transfered corruption from one sphere to another, and going back would likely simply shift it back to the state legislatures.
I have thought along the same lines but I would base the punishment on taxation and regulation. If they vote to increase either of the above they would be brought out once a month and their constituents would be able to beat them with iron rods (the size of the rods to be based on the amount of intrusion voted for.)
This way those addicted to government dollars would not be able to sell their votes to the corrupt (liberal) pols
MAJOR Boortz ping
Well, states had to give rights to citizens of other states, but not "equal protection".
In fact, the Bill of Rights DID NOT apply to states until the 14th Amendment. That meant that States did not have to respect your first or second amendment rights; of course, many states had constitutions that protected these rights...
The fact is that they WON'T be the same slobs. Beyond being beholden to the state legislature, MANY states would flip flop sides.
We would lose 8 seats in LA, MS, AL, CO, and ME but pick up 8 seats in ND, SD, MI, IN, WI.
There will be other flip-flops as well, but those are some of the key ones.
RINOs would tend to die out in the Senate as well because most of them come from states with democratic legislatures.
I enjoyed this thread and all of the comments. Very thought provoking and informative.
Thanks.
It kind of redefines where battleground states are huh? Oregon, Nevada, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, Iowa, New York, and Delaware. There are also some close states, such as Colorado (The Dems have a +1 majority).
Commonly held myth. Totally untrue. Some of the rights enumerated in the BOR couldn't have applied to the fed at the time. For example, there were no civil suits of common law at the federal level, at the time the BOR was ratified, however the VII Amendment is about nothing other than suits at common law valued over $20.
Of COURSE not the ENTIRE BOR! some of the BOR was specifically adressed to states. But like post 133 said, the 1st and second amendments ONLY applied to the Feds.
That about sums things up here in ND, IMHO. I'd be thrilled to see the 17th go the way of the dodo.
I seriously doubt the situation would improve here in MA. If the state legislature had the power to appoint Senators the position would become one of political payoff much like the members of the Turnpike Commission. Granted, I don't see us doing much worse than Kerridy (the only difference between the two is that one had to marry his money.) At least there is some direct accountability to the people. I happen to like Gordon Pym's proposal that people who receive government largess not be able to vote. That would stop government from being a channel from my pocket to theirs.
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.