Skip to comments.A great New Year's resolution: Henry Lamb cheers on movement to repeal 17th Amendment
Posted on 01/01/2011 12:14:15 AM PST by JohnHuang2
In hopes of returning to a previous, "better" condition, millions of Americans will resolve to: quit smoking, lose weight, or engage in some other activity to make their life better in some way. Suppose there were an activity in which Americans could engage that would make the entire world better, especially that portion of the world we call the United States of America. There is!
We can resolve to restore the original, unique republic created by our founders.
George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison and the handful of other great Americans who assembled in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 used nearly half of the Convention time debating the single issue of representation in the new government. Shall the new government be a government of the states, or a government of the people?
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Happy New Year, y’all! Take care and God bless!
Yessssssssss!!! Damn the will of the people! Screw them! WE career politicians in state government know what's best for you. I want POWER! Give me my lifetime federal job NOW!!!! DIE 17TH AMENDMENT!!
Yeah, Alex’s brother-in-law. He’s at the end of the bat at Fraunces Tavern, nursing his ale. He’ll talk your ear off about politics.
End of the BAR. Gee, I shouldn’t be up at this time of night. Happy New Year.
Both approaches have difficulties. Sinecures obtained by favors to the voters will be replaced with other sinecures obtained by cronyism in state governments.
Ironically, having an appointed upper house is much more common in nations that are NOT Republics. Prime examples today are the United KINGDOM and the DOMINION of Canada, both of whom have appointed upper houses, with the Queen as head of state.
When we declared independence from England and decided to put an appointed upper house into effect, we were retaining one of the old features of the old King George pre-Republic era. Other nations that abolished their monarchy and established Republics, like France, did away with the old arisocratic ways much quicker. Even the UK itself almost immediately did away with an appointed upper house when they were briefly a Republic in the 1600s. In their case, they simply abolished the upper house and let the House of Commons have sole legislative authority as the "rump parliment". Appointed upper houses in free republics are an oddity.
And here I am trying to figure out what B A R stands for...
Happy New Year
ANY president elected for life is not a president, but a DICTATOR.
As a Canadian, I’ll proudly point out that the term “Dominion of Canada”, a reference to Psalm 72:8 “He shall have Dominon from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth” - which is echoed in Canada’s national motto “Ad Mare Usque Ad Mare” (from sea to sea) - is no longer current.
It hasn’t been used officially since the 50’s and was essentially legally abolished by the Canada Act of 1982. Canada signs all of it’s international documents “Canada” and not “The Dominion of Canada”.
Also, our Senate, while appointed, hasn’t opposed an Act passed by our directly elected lower-house in my memory. If they did it would almost certainly result in an immediate change in our Constitution.
My New Year’s resolution is work towards reducing the behemoth in Versailles on the Potomac to pre-1849 size. 1849 was when the Department of the Interior was formed; some say unconstitutionally. It most certainly is NOT an enumerated power.
An ambitious, probably improbable, goal; but as in all compromises, start high and back off somewhat. An acceptable compromise would be 1862-size government(s).
Same to you JohnHuang@,
And keep up your usual good work.
No way, no how, nuh uh. Forget it, kill it, bury it, make it go away. Say bye-bye, buh-bye, adios, hasta la vista, sayonara, auf wiedersehn, don’t come back now, y’hear ?
Keep your stinkin’ hands off my RIGHT to directly elect MY U.S. Senators, you damn dirty apes !
instead of a knee-jerk reaction you might consider the information at the link provided in the response just previous to yours.i believe we have been ill served by voting for our senators directly instead of allowing the state legislators choose.it was all part of the complex checks and balances system designed by some of the brightest pennies to have ever graced our planet.
My husband and I are definitely for the repeal of the 17th amendment. Hubby is definitely FOR the flat tax.
The original intent of the founders was to have a weak central government, with the states retaining most of the political power. That is why the senate was appointed by the states. The house was the peoples house, and the senate was the states house. Now, both houses are run by political parties and special interest groups. With elected senators came campaigns with donations from special interest groups and political parties. The senate is no longer the states house. I say the only way to put the republic back and end this run on socialism, is to repeal the 17th....
I’ve been through this crap repeatedly with you guys and your pie-in-the-sky fantasies of what the Senate will be with its repeal, and you will never convince me of its soundness. All you’re doing is removing my right to directly elect a Senator (and don’t lecture me on influencing my state legislators — I’m in a VRA State Senate district and a perpetually Democrat State House and U.S. House district, meaning the only race I’ll have a say in is the Governorship and nothing else), and I will oppose that with every fiber of my being. There’s a damn good reason why the 17th was passed, and a good deal of it had to do with just how out of touch the Senators were becoming from their constituents and how more and more they were representing their own narrow personal interests and less with the Founding Fathers’ ideal of jealously standing up for their states. You’d also have a good number of states would be perpetually out of reach for electing Republican members (and even those where you’d have Republicans, the likelihood that they’d be RINOs is considerable — meaning more Lindsey Graham, McCain, Bob Bennett and Maine Twin types rather than DeMints or Coburns).
I take it you’re in a non-Democrat legislative district in our state ? Because I will fight like hell to keep that repeal from becoming a reality. Unless you want the perpetual Senate elections of RINOs Lamar! and Corker.
I don’t see why we cannot continue to have our senators elected by the people. We have an advantage in the state legislature at present and can do what is necessary to ensure that....can’t we?
They wouldn’t be elected by the people, but by legislative elitists with their own agenda of protecting their power. My legislators do not vote as I wish, I have no say in their elections because I don’t have the right skin color (or party) in one and the wrong party in another.
Who are these mythical statesmen you think will magically be elected by our new GOP legislature ? Do you also have no problem telling all those people living in other states with Democrat legislatures that they will never be able to send a Republican to the Senate ? How ‘bout telling the folks in Kentucky that, since with their legislative makeup, they’d send 2 liberal Democrat parasites to the Senate. Mississippi would also still be sending 2 Democrats and Arkansas, too.
You forgot a couple of more points why repealing the 17th is not the panacea some think it to be.
1. When state legislatures were divided, US Senate seats went unfilled, sometimes for YEARS.
2. In corrupt machine politics states, a US Senator often owned the state legislature. It’s easier to bribe 200 people than to bribe 2 million people.
3. When the amendment was adopted, many states already elected US Senators by popular vote. The legislature was required by law to elect whomever the people chose.
I think to many Freepers think we would get a bunch of Henry Clays, John C. Calhouns and Daniel Websters. We would instead get a bunch of William A. Clarks, a corrupt turn of the century Montana Senator who was a poster boy for the 17th amendment.
Careful, that may be considered a positive benefit. ;-D Actually, that only happened on a number of occasions. Delaware went for about 2 years in one seat and 4 in the other at the turn of the last century when the state went from Democrat to Republican. The only other long periods were in the Southern states during the readmission interim in the late 1860s through to the 1870s (although the legislatures did choose members, they were often refused their seats once they got to DC).
"2. In corrupt machine politics states, a US Senator often owned the state legislature. Its easier to bribe 200 people than to bribe 2 million people."
Exactly. Sometimes the puppetry ran both directions. In states like IL or MA today, you'd have both Senators that would be stooges for the House Speakers. Although Scott Brown in MA is not without flaws, his election would be impossible in a 90% Democrat legislature, and moonbats like Martha Coakley, once in, would be set for life.
"3. When the amendment was adopted, many states already elected US Senators by popular vote. The legislature was required by law to elect whomever the people chose."
Also true. People were getting fed up with self-serving bosses representing their own narrow interests and giving the proverbial middle-finger to the people. Although the Progressives of that era did a lot of dreadful things, this was one of the few things they got right. If the degradation of the quality of the Senators over time hadn't have occurred, it's unlikely the 17th would've been necessary. After all, even the Founding Fathers would readily admit that the Constitution isn't a mutual suicide pact. If something isn't working, that's what amendments are for.
"I think to many Freepers think we would get a bunch of Henry Clays, John C. Calhouns and Daniel Websters. We would instead get a bunch of William A. Clarks, a corrupt turn of the century Montana Senator who was a poster boy for the 17th amendment."
Precisely. We'd be fortunate to get a single Senator remotely within the realm of "statesman." The minefield any aspiring Senator would have to navigate in a legislature would immediately compromise them (not to mention they'd also likely be duty-bound to follow what the national parties wanted, as opposed to exclusively protecting their own states, beyond that is, making sure pork comes through en masse).
You're right that it would never be repealed, because said action would require the approval of those who profit by the Amendment's presence.
But, the design of government held a State-appointed Senate as a foundation of a republican form of government. Several Federalists (Papers) explain their design.
Now, we move to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, where we find its only guarantee: "a Republican form of Government."
We have a contradiction! We can't have a republican form of government and a popular Senate! Either we trash the 17th or we trash the guarantee. I opt for the former.
I make my point here. The entire last chapter is dedicated to this subject.
I disagree. You use federal funding for the latter, and incur no personal debt. The debt is the nation's. Need I provide any examples?
Well! You live in a state with two really GREAT senators picked by the populace.
Your defense of the 17 Amendment has faulty premises.
At present, a senator from a state can, and often is, funded by national (or international interests like Saudis, Soros, Iranians supporting Obama) rather than state interests and issues.
However, the central issue is whether we are going to allow Congress to do charity. Or, do we follow the Constitution and remember rep. Crockett’s famous “It’s not yours to give.” concept.
Washington had it right - “The Constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all.”
I never said our state was perfect. We’d not have been able to have any GOP Senator from the early 1870s until 2007 (if not 2009). We need closed primaries and a runoff to improve upon our current subpar individuals. If Michigan were to elect Senators from Lansing, you’d end up with RINOs like Fred Upton and your execrable former Congressman, Joe Schwarz.
Remember, again, the central argument of the 17th repealers crowd is expecting some magical smorgasbord of statesmen to somehow find themselves elected. I suggest researching the membership from the Gilded Age up through the Progressive Era to get an idea of what led to the movement to enact the 17th. At least it ensures that every state has a shot at electing someone that represents our views. Absent it, close to half the states would be closed off for the forseeable future. The thought of my formerly corrupt legislature under Democrat bosses/thugs for nearly 140 years choosing puppets/hacks without interruption is a sickening notion.
The difference would be that a senator would have to vote for the best interest of each state and not some high priced lobbyist in DC.
D’oh ! Excuse me, I got you momentarily confused with another poster from Michigan. Boss Hogg Naifeh quite probably would’ve had himself made Senator at some point under a repeal of the 17th. The Gores would’ve also been Senators for life.
Theory meets reality - you do have a point. However, if the issue is an informed electorate electing wise men of character to operate government, we must first take over the schools and assure that we meet both of the “Two Essentials of All Human Societies”.
1. Raise and acculturate the next generation.
2. Pass on the territory to that next generation in a livable condition.
Failure of either results in extinction of that society.
So - slap a Pooblik Skool Edumacator today - Do it For The Chilrun!
Can’t argue with that.
The only thing that I can hope for is a conversion of heart in those that serve. I don't see that happening any time soon.
Browning Automatic Rifle.
Folks, the 17th Ammendment is not going to be repealed an you are wasting your time trying to do so. One of the beauties of the COTUS was that it could be amended as times and changes dictated. The COTUS was properly amended when it was realized that the original idea of Senators being picked by legislatures was no longer working as intended.
My home state of Oklahoma now has a Republican controled legislature. However, for most of its history it was strongly democrat. However, even with the people voting for Democrats for state offices, they sent Republican senators to Congress. If the 17th had not have been in effect, then Oklahoma would have been sending ONLY democrats to the Senate.....a bad thing.
The people directly electing Senators is the better idea for the conditions as they are today. IF the day of “Statesmen” ever returns, then repeal of the 17th would be OK. I don’t see a day of “Statesmen” in our future.
Actually, IF you really want to push for something that would improve things, then push for an amendment that will institute term limits on the House and Senate. We need more citizen legislators. There are folks still in the House and Senate that should be gone...if there were term limits they would be.
How about reversing the court decision which illegitimately requires state legislative seats to be allocated by population, rather than e.g. by county? I’m sure the Founding Fathers would be totally aghast at the idea that one house of a state legislature (perhaps called a “state Senate” might allocate the same number of seats to a county with 10,000 people as one with 1,000,000. Just as aghast as they would be with the idea of states having Senators allocated like that.
I think your side is the one with the knee-jerk reactions on this issue.
Someone says “A REPUBLIC AND NOT A DEMOCRACY” and everyone goes hog wild with approval.
Those of us who has examined this issue realistically have concluded it would be a disaster to have State Legislators appoint Senators.
People in many states have made piss poor choices of Senators. Career politicians in State Legislatures would make even worse choices. Expecting them to choose wisely is dangerous naive. They are full of rats and RINOS and yes even corrupt “conservatives”. You don’t make things better by giving politicians MORE power.
Anyone who wants to change the 17th truly has their head up their ass, period. See my above post as to why giving most pols MORE power is a worse idea than naming LiLo the designated driver on New Year's Eve.
Why is it when I see glance upon Big Sis I think of tuna tacos?
The influence of national political parties would be diminished, local influences would be strengthened, and Senators would be beholden to the will of the state legislatures instead of the will of Presidents and party hacks. I have given it thought over the years and prefer the original method of appointing Senators.
I prefer a lot of things the Founders wanted, but the practice and results sometimes differs from the original intentions. I 100% support the 17th, and I have also given years of thought (and research of every single individual to have been elected to Congress) to it. It would be nice to have the Clays, Calhouns and the like, but we’d end up with big government RINOs and the same corrupt Democrat thugs with little to fear from ever being removed by the state legislatures. In other words, if we got even 1 statesman out of the deal, we’d be lucky. I don’t think we’d get even that.