Posted on 11/27/2008 10:18:01 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Yes. And part time as well. There is I am sure a connection.
Citizen-legislators and not all lawyers!
That could work better than you think. Imagine California’s legislooture being unable to appoint Senators. :-)
And such a state of affairs can be used to challenge and overturn Reynolds v. Sims (1 man-1 vote in each house).
Unfortunately it isn't the taxpayers doing the buying.
Bingo. The California General Assembly is yet another example why the 17th amendment should stay intact.
I always thought these freepers who trust big government to select their Senators FOR them should be forced to sit down at the state capitol and watch their legislature "in action" for about 3 weeks straight. Maybe then they'd stop insisting that politicians would select better Senators than the voters. The idea of letting these incompetant corrupt socialists run the FEDERAL government as well as the state government is downright scary. I wouldn't trust my General Assembly to vote on what pair of shoes I should wear today, let alone who should "represent" me in Washington for six years. Here in Illinois, we would NEVER have a chance of getting a decent Senator like Peter Fitzgerald ever again. Emil Jones would have made Carol Moseley-Braun our Senator for life.
I really don't get these freepers who want big government to choose their Senators for them. The ONLY arguement they have is yap about how "the original consitution" did it that way. Okay, so what? Should we bring back slavery because it was in "the original constitution"? Should we abolish the second amendment and it's right to keep and bear arms because it's not part of "the original constitution"? I don't see their point. I'm for keeping the electoral college, but I have a REASON for doing so -- that is distributes the votes more equally and prevents presidential campaigns from being waged just in urban areas -- not simply because it's in "the original constitution"
You know what's interesting? The original 1789 constitution stated that the runner-up for President would automatically become President. But none of these hypocrites are out demanding that John Kerry be seated as Bush's veep or that John McCain become Obama's second in command. You know why? They don't trust them to do what's best for this nation. Just like I don't trust their corrupted heroes in these gerrymandered legislators to improve over the voter's choices for U.S. Senate.
Bingo. The California General Assembly is yet another example why the 17th amendment should stay intact.
I always thought these freepers who trust big government to select their Senators FOR them should be forced to sit down at the state capitol and watch their legislature "in action" for about 3 weeks straight. Maybe then they'd stop insisting that politicians would select better Senators than the voters. The idea of letting these incompetant corrupt socialists run the FEDERAL government as well as the state government is downright scary. I wouldn't trust my General Assembly to vote on what pair of shoes I should wear today, let alone who should "represent" me in Washington for six years. Here in Illinois, we would NEVER have a chance of getting a decent Senator like Peter Fitzgerald ever again. Emil Jones would have made Carol Moseley-Braun our Senator for life.
I really don't get these freepers who want big government to choose their Senators for them. The ONLY arguement they have is yap about how "the original consitution" did it that way. Okay, so what? Should we bring back slavery because it was in "the original constitution"? Should we abolish the second amendment and it's right to keep and bear arms because it's not part of "the original constitution"? I don't see their point. I'm for keeping the electoral college, but I have a REASON for doing so -- that is distributes the votes more equally and prevents presidential campaigns from being waged just in urban areas -- not simply because it's in "the original constitution"
You know what's interesting? The original 1789 constitution stated that the runner-up for President would automatically become Vice President. But none of these hypocrites are out demanding that John Kerry be seated as Bush's veep or that John McCain become Obama's second in command. Why aren't they pushing for what's in "the original constitution" You know why? They don't trust them to do what's best for this nation. Just like I don't trust their corrupted heroes in these gerrymandered legislators to improve over the voter's choices for U.S. Senate.
No, no, I’m glad they can’t. That’s what I’m saying.
In the limited time, I have, I cannot explain in depth, but the reason for the state legislatures (which have become, over the years, legisLOOTures) appointing Senators was so that the states, which were basically sovereign entities bound by the terms of the Constitution, could have representation in Congress. The Senate was also meant to be somewhat removed from popular passions, which the House, whose members are directly elected, could not be.
However, given the state of today’s legisLOOTures, I can understand your point of view. However, if the legisLOOTures were appointing Senators, more people, logically, would have a reason to get involved in state politics, and maybe the legisLOOTures would become non-crappy legislatures again. That last point is, admittedly, speculative.
Sadly, it doesn't work that way on the state level. If we redrew my state legislature to work the SAME way the federal government did (with the Illinois State Senate having 102 senators, each representing ONE -- and only -- county at large), then perhaps we'd have a legislative that works for the people of Illinois. It's very unlikely the Dems would even get a majority in the upper house, because about 3/4ths of the counties in Illinois ususally vote Republican. As it stands, we have a state legisLOOTor controlled by crooked pols from Chicago that gerrymander it so they hold office for life and the city has total control over the other 3/4ts of the state. I wouldn't trust these people to appoint an offical state dog catcher.
The problem with freepers who want the government to look exactly like it did in 1789 is that America has changed since 1789. The founding fathers didn't foresee the rise of huge urban metropolis that centralize the power structure, gerrymandering, the industrial revolution, massive political perks, etc. when they decided "state legislatures" should pick our Senators, nor did they foresee the rise of political parties and special interests when they decree that the runner up for President shall be become President. That system worked fine when John Adams came in second and ended up as Washington's veep. It would be a disaster if Kerry ended up as Bush's veep. You can't have your political enemy a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
One of the biggest problems with the CA legislature is redistricting. It’s heavily ‘Rat favored and incumbent protection oriented. There are virtually no competitive elections in November there.
“No benefits to illegal aliens (save $14 billion a year).”
Good idea, but that’s not entirely the legislature’s fault. The state Supreme Court made some intrusive rulings on that one.
Same with my state legislature. I HAD a staunch conservative Republican State Senator (Pat O'Malley, R-Palos Park, who ran in the GOP primary for Governor in 2002) until redistricting. Our NEW district is 70% suburban and 30% Chicago. The suburban part is mostly white middle class and votes center-right. The Chicago area is ENTIRELY improvised black neighborhoods that vote 95% Democrat. Our new overlord that the Chicago Dem machine APPOINTED to reign over us for LIFE is a "Lipinski type" socially conservative white Dem from the city who votes pro-life and pro-family but will vote with the party whenever his vote his "needed". He's taylor-made to keep them in power here and polls very well in the suburbs. But even if the vast majority of us voted AGAINST him, he'd still win because the 30% of the district that's in the city will provide HUGE monolithic support for any "D" candidate that's so lopsided the suburbs couldn't outvote them unless we voted Republican by insanely high 75% margins.
Oh, and last time, a well known and well known conservative Republican filed for the seat and the Dem machine figured he might theoretically pose a threat to him, so they threw him off the ballot. Which is the same thing that happened six years ago, too. Our State Senator runs "unopposed" alot even those people file again him.
And some freepers have the gall to claim state legislatures represent "local" interests?
Bull****. They can continue living in their fantasy world from 1789 and let their criminal pols pick their Senators. Just keep them the hell away from giving MY criminal state government any MORE authority.
Illinois doesn't need more "state's rights", we need LESS "state" power and MORE individual rights.
One of Gay Davis’s first decisions was to not appeal the case. Someone has to step up on this issue and be ready to go to the the supreme court.
Nebraska’s legislature is also officially non-partisan.
Without the popular election of senators the rats would probably have had a majoirty continuously since the 1930’s.
wow, how do they do that?
There is just no letter next to their names on the ballot and they aren’t officially divided into party caucuses.
A majority of them are Republicans though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Legislature
In effect it probably gives the demrats a little more influence than they should have.
The problem with ditching repeal of the 17th Amendment is that we basically forsake for good a means of enforcing the 10th Amendment. The only nods to the 10th Amendment that I see is that states are sometimes given block grants to spend as they wish, or given some latitude in structuring a Federal program (I believe Medicaid and unemployment are two examples). Other than that, we have a national legisLOOTure that fundamentally believes in big government.
The problem with the 17th Amendment is that the states lost the ability to protect their own powers from federal encroachment, via appointing Senators that the legislatures could tell how to vote on a given matter. As far as I know, that particular problem with the power structure has not changed since 1913. As far as the appointments themselves go, having the state senates representing counties could solve the patronage/corruption problem to some extent, unless a given state is heavily Democratic or Republican.
Sorry ‘bout that. For some reason, I interpreted your sentence as Repeal of the 17th Amendment. However, were it repealed, and the Kalifornia legisLOOTure deadlocked on appointing Senators, we’d have two less liberal hacks in Washington to worry about. :-)
Right. A worthless piece of Swiss cheese, mostly holes.
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.