Posted on 05/30/2005 5:58:31 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Why would a State Legislature be better than The Public in electiong a Senator. Which state has a legislature that is trustworthy enough to do so? Texas? New Mexico? California?
Now you talk about a body that should be elected "by the states", the Supreme Court could be constituted as a body with rotating membership, with each state sending in one justice for one year as it's turn came up.
Now, should we then take a justice out and shoot him after his term is up? I don't know. Haven't thought that one through. Judges are a little different than Senators after all. They all wear the same color clothes to work for one thing.
I know.
That's why I support the FairTax (HR 25), a 23% across-the-board national retail sales tax (NRST). OF course, you would still have property taxes, which make us all serfs. But land taxation has been around since the Founding, so we've always been serfs...
Imagine New Jersey ~ is the legislature better equipped than the general public in that horrid spot to screw up electing a Senator?
Any attempt to de-legitimize the 16th & 17th amendments, and the Fed. Reserve Act by wishing away their legitimacy through supposed illegitimate methods is useless and serves any arguments against them, good or bad, poorly.
DiLorenzo is so blinded by antipathy for Lincoln he can't see anything but what he hates in things Lincoln had nothing to do with. You folks get equally blinded in arguing out whether or not the Fed Reserve, etc., is real or not. Who gives a sh*t what Wilson thought of it. Wilson was an ass. He signed the damned thing. That's like having Dubya complain about CFR.
If doesn't matter. The legislator will elect whoever will represent the interests of that lagislator in Washington. It's all about self-interest.
Southern and Western Democrats had introduced scores of income tax bills in the late 19th century to lower the tariff and get federal hands on the money in the wealthy industrial states. In 1894 a Democrat Congress passed an income tax. Grover Cleveland didn't sign it. He liked the tariff reductions but wasn't crazy about the income tax. The revenue bill became law anyway, and was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1895. Three-time Democrat Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan was a strong proponent of a federal income tax.
As regards the Senate, "Democracy" was becoming ever more important an idea. Senators may have figured that as democracy became more important, they'd lose power and influence if they weren't directly elected. In many countries, upper legislative chambers not directly elected by the people tend to become rubber-stamp bodies that are under compulsion to go along with the lower house. That would be a likely result if we went back to the old way of electing Senators.
One problem with the article is that if things were changed in 1866 DiLorenzo blames subsequent problems on the change. He ignores possible flaws or discontentment with the original way of electing Senators. The 1866 law may well have been mistaken, but it may also have been an attempt to deal with the problems of the original system. And it's not clear that a system of choosing Senators by voice votes in state legislatures would have lasted without generating problems of its own.
DiLo apparently believes that we'd be doing everything today as we did in 1790, if bad or foolish men hadn't tried to change things. That looks very naive. Plenty of people who agreed with him about limiting the powers of the federal government promoted changes over time because they thought that greater popular control would provide strengthen the checks on government power. They were naive in that but it wasn't just the bad guys trying to do bad things that changed things.
Yep.
Don't forget that the same people who brought you the 17th also gave you the wonderful 16th, just two months earlier. (The 16th is direct taxation a.k.a. your federal income tax)
A Power Grab, indeed...
.
I say why even have a Supreme Court? After all, NOTHING in the Constitution states that they will be the final interpreters of the Constitution; The SCOTUS gave themselves that right in Marbury v. Madison!
I say we have all Federal judges elected, with a state-appointed Senate being the final say.
Read Antifederalist papers no. 78 and 79 on this subject:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404661/posts
It doesn't matter. The New Jersey legislature will appoint whomever will look out for the New Jersey legislature.
bttt
Then why even discuss history? Who cares if the Civil War was fought over tax revenue?
Who cares if there was a PRO-SLAVERY amendment, passed by both houses and endorsed by lincoln, before the war even started?
Term limits would be of more benefit. I certainly don't trust state legislatures to appoint anyone for dog catcher, let alone a Senator.
Each state can determine whether to term-limit their senate appointees. It doesn't have to be the same across the board. That's the beauty of federalism...
Might hamper the carpetbaggers.
Oh I don't know. Perhaps because it reminds me of 4th grade school yard debating tactics? We'll just 'kill 'em'. Real mature
You know very well that the men we have in the Senate, and the women for that matter, are the kind of folks who would trade their very souls to serve even one term.
And we have even more of that kind in the separate and sovereign states. The type person a conservative would want in office is the type person that would not seek the office. And would not want to use the powers, real or derived, for concern of taking even more liberty from the citizens of the respective states
Why do I suspect you work on some Senator's staff (or know someone who does)?
Yep, that's me. Political insider billbears. My disdain for the national government as it is currently laid out is only outweighed by my disdain for 99% of those that occupy political offices within the national government. I neither work for a Senatorial office nor know anyone that does. I wouldn't work for one of those hacks if you tripled my current salary and I wouldn't associate with anyone that was proud of doing so either
At present this is a bad idea. Simply look at the nature of the creatures forming the California legislature.
If the voters aren't "bright enough" to be trusted, why would you think a state legislature dominated by 'Rats would change things? We'd still have a Kennedy and Kerry to deal with...as Massofchumpsetts would never term limit those two bums.
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.