Skip to comments.Alabama GOP Demands that Shelby Retract Support from Hagel
Posted on 02/25/2013 4:58:01 PM PST by Nachum
The Steering Committee of the Alabama Republican Party has taken the rare step of officially demanding that one of the states two GOP U.S. Senators change a publicly announced position in a high-profile Washington battle. Specifically, the state party leaders have passed a resolution demanding that Sen. Richard Shelby reconsider and reverse his decision to support Senator [Chuck] Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. The resolution, passed early this afternoon, blasts Hagel for statements favorable toward countries that we believe to be enemies of the United States of America, and also criticizes him for not being a supporter of Israel, the only dependable ally the United States of America has in that part of the world. It notes, too, that many Alabama citizens have expressed outrage at Senator Shelbys decision.
This is big stuff. Sen. Shelby is a powerful politician, and the state party long has been supportive of him. But his support of Hagel seems to really have created a backlash.
It has been an outpouring from people across the state, State Republican Chairman Bill Armistead told me. There have been phone calls from a lot of people, plus weve all been approached by people we know at churches and in our communities. I havent seen anything this strong in opposition to something done by one of our representatives in Congress in a long time.
(Armistead stressed that this does not indicate opposition to Shelby in general, but only that it was very strong opposition to this one decision.)
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Prime example of why the 17th Amendment needs repealed.
Why ? Do you want an even more liberal and statist Senate ?
He used to be a Dem if I’m not mistaken. I’m going to vote his ass out next time. Hope he has a challenger.
He’s not up until 2016.
More importantly, term limits need to be implemented.
More importantly, term limits need to be implemented.
I highly doubt the senate would be more liberal if appointed by state legislatures. As things are now, they are free agents, responsible to no one after winning a single race every six years.
Several of them just buy their seats, having enough money to ruin anyone who challenges them in the primary. John McCain is a great example. He is not an Arizonan, his wife is, and she is also a very wealthy beer heiress, who enjoys the Beltway cocktail party circuit.
As far as being more liberal, there is a problem with that as well, because much of the liberal agenda supports enormous federal power at the expense of the states. And this comes directly out of the hide of state legislators who do not like it one bit.
Speaking out of ignorance is never a good thing.
It was originally intended for the State legislatures to pick their Senators so the state would have representation in fedgov. This was to assist in balancing power between the states and fed.
27 state legislatures are Republican controlled....ie both houses. (24 have R controlled governments - ie 24/27 have a pubbie gov too)
17 are dem controlled.
5 are split. Of those 1 has a R governor.
1 state legislature, Nebraska, is "non partisan."
Which would most likely mean the R's would have 54 in the Senate........to break this down for you, that would mean they'd have the majority they don't have.
We currently have two Houses at the federal level that are elected by popular vote.....ie mob rule and have the ability to vote the fruits of one's labor unto another.
There is no representation of the state at the federal level.
By returning power to the State, you would be less likely to see fedgov bullying the States ie raise the drinking age to 21 or you lose highway funding, or you must set the speed limit to 55mph or you lose xxxxx etc.
Further, you probably wouldn't have the GOP steering committee in SC(?) threatening their dumbass Senator for supporting cloture for Hagel's nomination vote.....in other words, the Senator would already be beholden to their State.
If the 17th Amendment were repealed today, the Republicans would have a distinct advantage. They currently control 27 state legislatures and the Democrats control only 18. That doesn’t mean we’d get rid of the Shelbys, but it would certainly mean Republicans would control the US Senate. It’s a good starting point.
I meant Alabama, not SC......
I was thinking along the lines of TX (and others) putting forth legislation preventing federales from enforcing federal firearms laws within their respective state(s)....essentially stating the right of the state trumps fed law ala SC pre-Civil war. And mashed it into the topic at hand with Alabama.
But, I meant to add the above points as well, and accidentally hit "post" before I was done proofing.
The point is, the states (legislatures) would already have their ability to check fed power and wouldn't be trying to pass legislation after the fact to combat fed laws.
Repeat Offender, I could’ve spared you all that typing. This has been discussed repeatedly. I suggest reading this thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2986688/posts
and a bit of a follow-up in this one:
Simply put, the belief that you’d get a better Senate with repeal of the 17th is a fallacy (or fantasy), because it runs smack into the political reality and dynamics of today. The likelihood of getting Conservatives committed to smaller government elected from a state government body desirous for big federal gov $$ is next to zero. Texas, for example, wouldn’t be sending Ted Cruz, it would be sending big government liberals like Karl Rove (as a thank you to Dubya) and David Dewhurst (the rich Lt Governor and establishment liberal who ordered the legislature to help elect him over Cruz at all costs).
And it in no way currently represents the entrenched aristocracy feared in Senators by the Antifederalists.
There was a reason the Founders put it in the original Constitution.
because it runs smack into the political reality and dynamics of today.
Liberals during the "Progressive Era" said as much during the debate leading up to the passage of 17th Amendment.
They're saying the 2nd and 10th run smack into political reality and dynamics of today.
good for Alabama!!!!!!!!!!!
any senator still supporting Mr. Hagel after all the bad stuff that’s come out about him (undisputed and/or not proven false... )......
should be voted OUT of the senate, asap!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
American Jews supported Obama by 69%.
I am Jewish.
I long ago concluded that the 17th could never be repealed because the senate would not permit it. They enjoy their privilege of being free agents, not beholden to their state and its people.
However, there is an alternative, that duplicates the original senate to a great extent, and restores the balance between the federal government and the states.
Each year the federal district courts send some 8,000 cases to the Supreme Court, which can hear only a few dozen, representing a huge bottleneck in the judicial system.
On these grounds, a constitutional amendment could create a subordinate court, *not* a federal court, but a court composed of judges appointed specifically by the state legislatures. Two judges per state, on concurrent terms with their US senators.
Because this Second Court of the United States would not be a federal court, it does not determine the constitutionality of laws, a job for the federal courts. Instead it first determines if a law being appealed to the Supreme Court is in reality a constitutional issue, or should be returned to the state of origin for decision.
That is, it is a jurisdictional court. And one large enough to hear 8,000 federal district court cases over the course of a year. Not to determine their constitutionality, but to decide whether or not their are federal, not state issues involved.
Importantly, these cases would continue on to the SCOTUS, but if the SCOTUS refused to hear them, the jurisdictional decision of the Second Court would come into effect, *instead* of, by default, the decision of the federal district courts. *Only if* the Second Court decided a federal issue was indeed involved, would the case then revert to the decision of the federal district court.
This would give the states as a group the ability to “de-federalize” cases that were originally the prerogative of the states, but had been “federalized” by any one of hundreds of federal judges.
In doing so, this would strip the federal judiciary of much of its legislating from the bench.
The other purpose of the Second Court would be original jurisdiction over all lawsuits between the federal government and the states. So instead of such cases taking many years, through several layers of appeals, even though they can only definitively be decided by the SCOTUS, the *states* would have first crack at such lawsuits.
For example, right now, dozens of states would be happy to join a lawsuit to overturn Obamacare in its entirety. And they could likely decide (as a safe equivalent to a constitutional convention), to do so.
Because, and this is a zinger, if two-thirds of this court agreed to a decision, it would be in effect the number of states needed to call a constitutional convention. And if three quarters of the judges rejected a federal power grab, it would have the effective force of a constitutional amendment.
That is, the states would have a means to overrule congress, the president, and the judiciary, without the risks inherent in a constitutional convention.
Your post is unintentionally funny, in a way.
Yes, I want a “statist” senate - as in: state’s rights (not federal statist, as you seem to mean).
Not sure why you think the senate would be more liberal, though. That’s at worst a toss-up, and the senators wouldn’t be “partyists” in nature, the way they are now.
Just my $.02.
We went over all of that in those aforementioned threads. What the Founders hoped would happen with such a Senate chosen by state legislators simply didn’t (that was proven out by the mid-19th century). Removing the vote from the people and placing it back in their hands won’t do anything but make them even more insulated from their actions than before (and would instantly make 40 Senators perpetually Democrat in non-Republican states, freeing them up to elect the most far-left members imaginable — complemented by a coterie of liberal RINOs as the “Conservative” opposition). The biggest argument, that it would result in more pro-states rights Conservatives, was thoroughly debunked.
Read the links in post #15, Mort. Everything was covered.
In our republican controlled state here, we have the king of RINOs in this pig. He was a dim who jumped parties because he saw the writing on the wall and sudden defeat as a dim. All he did was change from (D) to (R) behind his name. The lack of brain did not change. He is still a liberal RINO. I have written him, Senator Sessions and my local rep many times. Shelby HAS NEVER responded to any correspondence that I sent to him. NONE. Nothing. Nadda. The puke will not respond to anyone who does not agree with him. I dearly hope someone will come forward to run against this puke.
If I were a Democrat or liberal Republican, I’d want repeal of the 17th. It would make my job a helluva lot easier at getting elected. I’d only have to focus my attention on bribing, coercing and manipulating the members of the legislature (what was pretty much being done post-mid-19th century).
As for state legs appointing judges, I’d be just as wary. Again, you’d have 20 states that would NEVER appoint non-Democrats (hence, safe moonbat in the mode of the 9th “Circus”). Now you might get some Conservative judges in those GOP states, but only by accident, as said jobs would be used as a reward for party loyalists (party, not ideology).
Regardless, the entire governmental system as it is is very messed up.
Every complaint you register as a problem exists now, with many even worse. Senators as national representatives only represent corporations and PACs. The wealthy ones buy seats.
I will also agree that any system will eventually be corrupted; but in this case, it is worth the effort to “de-nationalize” senators, if solely to shift federal power back to the individual states. Instead of their living in Washington for 5 years and six months, at least it would force them to return to their home states every now and then.
The assumption of the founding fathers was never than men are good, or that men are bad or evil; just that men are weak. It is an axiom that requires the people to keep the government system somewhat in flux.
At the time of the Alaska purchase, it has been alleged that congressmen and senators had been bribed to 300% of their total number. Things change.