Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 06/25/2010 5:14:38 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (AP) - Republicans from across Idaho took aim at the 17th amendment during their state convention, calling for repeal of the measure.
A GOP committee narrowly passed a measure Friday to include language in the state party's platform that seeks to nullify the amendment created a century ago to shift election of U.S. senators from state legislatures to voters.
(Excerpt) Read more at kivitv.com ...
me too
Do we really want Obama voters doing it?
If people directly elect the House and they directly elect the Senate, then what is the point of having both?
The Senate were supposed to be “State Ambassadors,” statesmen who represented the interest of their state to the US Government. The House was supposed to represent the interest of the people.
That is why the House is elected to 2 year terms and the Senate to 6. The will of the people can change rapidly and in either direction. The Senate is supposed to have more forethought, looking at the long term betterment of the country, rather than doing what you have to to get re-elected now.
Also, the House is broken down by population, while the Senate is not. With direct election of Senators, all of Texas or California can only elect 2, while Rhode Island and Montana also get two. But if the Senators are representatives of the state legislatures, then each state gets 2 Senators, not the people.
Hurrah!!!
I couldn’t have put it more succinctly.
Senators have only represented one thing since the Amendments passage, Themselves !
Only if you’re not good at tracing.
The 17th should definitely go.
It represents the most direct assault on the federal nature of our republic.
The Senate was meant to represent the states, as entities in their own right (like individuals) that required their own representation in the federal legislature.
The “peoples” representation, collectively, is in the House.
Now a U.S. Senator at most represents their self, and the few NATIONWIDE special interests that help them get elected. They do not operate to protect the rights, the powers and the obligations of the states; not even their own.
There is nothing anti-democratic about the state legislatures electing the U.S. Senators; unless one wants to pretend that either the election of those state legislators and their election of a Senator would not be “democratic”.
And, you know this how?
And, what do ducks have to do with it? :)
Yep. The 19th needs to go, too.
...Fool you twice?
Okay, I'll bite. What do you call the provision which states:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Look at it this way.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"?One has to born in the US and be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Children born to illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction to the US, they're subject to the jurisdiction of the country of their parents. For example children of foreign diplomats born in the US are not US citizens by birth.
sounds like one of my Saturday morning breakfast club friends...
No, I still don’t get it. By this logic there would be a good reason to bar Jews from voting (78% D). And more yet, it doesn’t deal with the fact of women being allowed to own guns; they’re not good enough for the ballot box, but they are for the ammo box. Yeah, right. I guess I’m going to go with the theory of this being an elaborate practical joke.
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.