Posted on 01/26/2010 4:11:17 AM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
As I was preparing to write a column on the ludi -crous maligning of the Tea Party movement by liberals, Democrats and the mainstream media (which I hope to write next week instead) I started thinking about one of the key objectives of the Tea Party people - the strict enforcement of the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.").
As an early-1960s-vintage member of the then-new conservative movement, I remember us focusing on the 10th Amendment during the 1964 Goldwater campaign. It has been a staple of conservative thought, and the continued dormancy of 10th Amendment enforcement has been one of the failures of our now half-century-old movement.
But just as the Tea Party movement seems in so many ways to represent the 2.0 version of our movement, so I again thought about the 10th Amendment anew. After about 10 seconds' thought, it struck me that the best way to revive the 10th Amendment is to repeal the 17th Amendment - which changes the first paragraph of Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution to provide that each state's senators are to be "elected by the people thereof" rather than being "chosen by the Legislature thereof."(As I Googled the topic, I found out that Ron Paul and others have been talking about this for years. It may be the only subject that could be proposed and ratified at a constitutional convention with three-fourths of the state legislatures.)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Maybe, if it happened in a vacuum. If the 17th were repealed and state legislatures appointed senators, you could go down and pound on the desk of the guy who voted to appoint the Rat senator that is screwing things up. It’s a lot easier to get rid of the local guy come election time too. And you can look him in the eye and tell him that.
With such a situation, you’d most assuredly see shifts occur at the local level. It would suddenly become much more important to control state legislatures and get more people directly involved in their local politics.
Well heck, why don't we just give all decision-making power to YOU, oh Great Enlightened One? Clearly democracy hasn't worked, but a representative republic is still too risky.
You're just as bad as the "We know what's best for you" left-wingers in Washington.
"at least the Governors can appoint men and women that WILL REPRESENT THEIR STATE... NOT SPECIAL INTERESTS!"
What the heck are you even talking about? If the 17th Amendment were repealed, the state legislatures, not governors, would pick senators.
What you assume is that Democratic state legislatures are peopled with the same types as the Democrats on the national level. Not true. That’s what I’m trying to tell you. The Democrats in West Virginia’s state legislature do not give a hoot about the green weenies. They care about their states interests such as the coal industry.
You have more direct control over state legislatures. They represent far less people and therefore are more accountable to the people. If they send a left wing looney to the Senate and their constintuency is not left wing, they are going to hear about it. Even worse than Federal Congressman do.
I don’t know about you, but local Democrats that are around where I live are nothing like the national Democrats. Oh, I’m sure that they would get corrupted to be like Chucky Shumer when they got on the national level because they would have to answer to national interests. That’s the whole point, because they are local, they are not like the Chucky Shumers of the world.
Without the 17th amendment, the Senate would be peopled (Democrat or Republican) by people more concerned with the states interests and not the party or national interests. Sure, there would be special interests involved, but they would be at the state level, not the national level. The original legislature was made up of the House who answered to the people and the Senate who answered to the states. Party interests took a back seat in the Senate. There are many Democratic Senators such as Ben Nelson, Evan Bayah, Jim Webb, Blanche Lincoln who voted for this health care bill because they were pressured by their party to go along with the leader of their party. Under the former system, they would be pressured by the interests of their states which many of the states are not for having more unfunded mandates put upon them whether they be Democrat or Republican.
And that won't eventually translate into better state legislatures? These tea parties don't protest just the Federal Government, after all.
“When this argument came up awhile ago, I listed what the makeup of the U.S. Senate would look like now, and the numbers were scarcely different overall. “
If you still have that list, I’d be interested in taking a look. Thanks.
If legislators are appointing senators, I believe that it’s less likely that liberals representing the interests of other states would be tolerated. I still think that if a senator from MI, appointed by the MI legislature, was voting for the interests of CA, the citizens of MI would go ballistic and demand his removal.
There’s still a lot positive to be said about cheering for and standing up for the home team. It’s human nature.
In New York ? Legislative accountability ? Good one.
I think the effect would be practically negligible. I think about my two rodent legislators deciding on who goes to Washington, and it causes my generals to recoil in horror. One State Rep. is corrupt and unaccountable, the other (State Senator) is accountable only to the Justice Department, who ordered its drawing to disenfranchise White voters for a Plantation Overseer who loves wearing crazy hats (who is saved from being the worst member of that body by Auntie Ophelia Ford, the Sterno addict, of Memphis). I couldn’t get the time of day from either. Those two would be unapologetic supporters of a permanent Senator Al Gore, Jr. in DC. So not only do I say “no” to the 17th repeal, but a “hell f’ing no !”
It would strengthen the party influence tremendously cause only a couple hundred career politicians would get a say.
Direct election of Senators made them the party animals they currently are
You think those wonderful rat and RINO state legislators aren't "party animals"? Why in the world do you think liberal state legislators oppose federal spending? Why don't you poll poll the NY rat legislators. I guarantee you at least 8 out of 10 of them would vote for this Obamacare. New Senator Jeff Merkey was recently Speaker of the Oregon house. You telling me his rat successor to that office is begging him to vote against Obamacare? LOL.
The whole point is that the Senators would be charged with representing their state's interests directly and the legislators would have to answer to the voters for their choice,
Rat (and RINO) state legislators themselves DON'T currently vote in their state's interest. They vote to increase state spending and taxes every week! Senators are currently directly accountable to the voters of the state. A lot of the jerkwads will be losing this year. Including the rat in Arkansas where the rats have like 70% of the legislative seats so they'd be keeping that one under this scheme.
My state (IL) would send the daughter (state AG) of the state house speaker (D) to the Senate, guaranteed. Nuts to that. I'm glad I have a right to vote for my own Senators. I live in Chicago, my vote is worthless in local elections and US house elections in my heavily rat districts. Statewide is the only place my vote has any power. You wanna take away my right to vote for my Senators and give to scumbag super corrupt legislators? Give the to power to some jerkwad who's been State House Speaker (save for 2 years 95-96 when the house was Republican) since before I was born? Nuts to that idea. Forgive the harsh tone of this post but the idea offends me. I take pleasure in knowing this silliness is a total non-starter.
How do you think I feel? I have Klobuchar and Franken for “senators”.
A FAIL of an idea.
And it’s not as if Republicans always vote the “right” way, or even have the sack to close their primaries to Republicans only. If the primaries were closed, and Republicans voted better than they did in 2008, we probably wouldn’t have ended up with Juan as a candidate.
The direct election of Senators lead to the crop of party hacks we have in there. Then you cite the predominance of party as the reason you support the direct election of senators!
We once had statesman like John Calhoun, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster (don't look it up - tell me what party they represented.) Now you're agitating for keeping the current system that brings us Olympia Snowe, Harry Reid, and Richard Durbin!
Nice system you're defending. Return to the constitutional roots. In almost every case, a return to the founder's original intent would better our nation. They were quite smart.
“And that won’t eventually translate into better state legislatures?”
You’re argument has weight. Two problems with that.
1. I think a focused vote is more powerful than a shotgun vote. What I mean by that is, we vote for legislators for all kinds of reasons. Just look at the many reasons why we elect a president. A liberal woman might vote for abortionist judges. A person might be concerned about the economy. At what point do we factor in generalship? The ability to command the armed forces? The same with a legislator. He could choose a turkey for the senate and get re-elected anyway due to many local and/or character issues.
2. People look more closely at Federal elections than local elections because that’s where the money and power is right now. That mindset would not change overnight. By the time America took local elections more seriously, we would be finished economically, our free speech would be completely shot, our gun rights would be revoked, and illegal aliens would cross the border for election day parties.
I LOVE the idea of wise State legislators appointing Senators to look after the interests of their States.
The reality is that, by 1900, the State legislatures were already hopelessly mired in corruption and graft. Some legislatures couldn't appoint a Senator for months or years at a time because nobody could make the payoffs.
When you look at the quality of actually existing State legislatures, you would NEVER agree to give them more powers.
Actually, I’d say the people in the legislatures are WORSE, because they get far less coverage by the media. Since virtually all legislatures are gerrymandered (most especially ones in Democrat hands), they are only accountable to the party. This presumption that the legislators are somehow “less dirty” or “more accountable” is absurd. I look at mine as a prime example. It took us 140 years of climbing out of the muck and mire to get total control of the legislature, and one scumbag little traitor punk to stop that reality last year (and we may still see a replay next year at the next organizational session).
Every year, the Dem party becomes more and more of the same lock-stepped Statist/Socialist mindset, from President clear down to Councilman and Dogcatcher, and I think for folks that think, “Well, MY member isn’t that bad,” perhaps they should take a closer look, because I guarantee you, they probably ARE that bad, and worse. That somehow these other Democrats would vote better is a fantasy. I want the U.S. Senators directly accountable to the people, it’s the only way to give us a fighting chance to elect one in ALL 50 states, otherwise by repealing the 17th, you throw it all away, and you can write off half the states, because the possibility of their ever electing a Republican again is zero. We need more accountability in this country, not less.
The one thing that would change with the state leg picking the senators is this:
Any senator who made the state pay for a fed mandate would be in a world of hurt with the state leg. Any thing that must be paid at the local level will quickly cost someone politically.
Impy, do you know where I put that breakdown list for the Senators if the 17th were repealed ? I’m terrible with bookmarking significant posts.
The post would look something like this:
xxx
MS (2R) (would be: 2D)
“Statewide is the only place my vote has any power. You wanna take away my right to vote for my Senators and give to scumbag super corrupt legislators?”
Right. Corruption is greatest where you aren’t looking. We don’t have a local FoxNews or local Rush yet, at least most states don’t. Conservatives are on a Federal footing. This would be like driving down a freeway, almost reaching your destination, and then shifting gears to ‘reverse’.
... and then shifting gears to ‘reverse’ at high speed.
LLS
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.