Posted on 05/05/2014 7:04:59 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
This idea makes sense to me, too.
Although I agree in the fundamental return of the States' role in the Central Government, I am convinced that it would not work for dystopic states like mine, California.
Much more's the pity!
Only because it renders both the House and the States irrelevant. For controlling "democratic" doofuses, that is a good thing.
That's the biggest impact of the 17th - making Senators have to raise campaign funds. And they get those funds from the central party, with strings attached of toeing the party agenda, not the home state's agenda.
-PJ
I believe you mean Hamilton, (Madison and Jay.
: )
Bad bad idea
The state legislature should not choose party candidates - that is an abomination - they should choose the Senators outright
This is a way to beat down the TEA party
Oops. Well, everyone should still read The Federalist Papers. They were written by people way smarter than I.
For all practical purposes, the 17th knocked off the 10th, and overnight consolidated power in DC.
Repeal the 17th and kiss goodbye the nomination of federal judges hostile to the 10th.
Also known as The RINO Protection Plan. Good luck trying to get your heroic state legislative leaders to nominate ANY Republican who isn't an establishment butt kisser committed to the status quo.
I find it ironic that the Tea Party and 3rd party groups like the Constitutition Party are gung-ho on passing legislation that would prevent Tea Party candidates and 3rd party groups from ever winning a U.S. Senate seat again.
As Impy notes, some RAT state legislators have their own "Let's shoot ourselves in the foot so we can make a statement" legislation. It's the ones that are pushing for safe RAT states to cast their electoral votes for the national popular vote winner. Unfortunately for our side, they're not stupid enough to put it into effect unless a majority of states do it. Otherwise we could have "won" all the electoral votes in places in New York, Maryland, and California in 2004, simply because Bush beat Kerry nationally. It would have been hilarious to watch the RAT states that passed that bill forced to send all Bush electors to Washington.
It sounds like Jacquerie would also like to repeal Article 1, Section 10. of the U.S. Constitution, which explicitly tells state governments to keep their nose OUT of things like international treaties (which both parties have ignored anyway, especially when they want to thumb their nose at the other party in power nationally).
Actually, now that I think about it, Jacquerie seems like the kind of freeper that would have vehemently opposed the ratification of the U.S. Constitution in the first place, and argued after Shay's rebellion that we were MUCH better off under the Articles of Confederation, when the federal government had NO power to enforce anything, and states had unlimited powers to run things how they saw fit.
The Paulbots have a similar mindset... preaching about how much their guy is the savior of the Constitution, when it in reality Ron Paul seems like the kind of guy who would have been an outspoken anti-federalist and loudly opposed the creation of a strong central government if he was alive in the 1780s.
I'm surprised Mark Levin isn't a Paulbot. His followers are sounding more and more like them every day.
I've never heard of this Greg Zoeller guy until now, but he definitely sounds like another Mourdock waiting to happen (is there something in the water that causes Indiana statewide officials to make idiotic fringe comments or what?)
Since they wouldn't actually be repealing the 17th, just biting the hand that feeds them by screwing over the conservative GOP primary voters in Indiana and giving them no say in their candidate, I hope Zoeller gets his way. A decade or so of the IN state legislature nominating Lugars in every Senate race should get it their through their thick skulls that state legislators are not the heroic stalwart defenders of liberty that Levin and his worshipers claim they are. Nearby states that have the power to nominate non-GOP hacks can laugh at Indiana conservatives for shooting themselves in the foot.
Speaking of which, the Illinois state legislature recently took power AWAY from voters to nominate who WE want for Lt. Governor, and left it up to state politicians who choose who THEY want. Where's the "democracy=mob rule/state legislatures know whats best for us/letting voters nominate who they want will destroy our republic" crowd to APPLAUD the Chicago machine for this wise move to restore "liberty" in Illinois? They should be REALLY proud of all the power the Illinois state legislature has seized, regardless of what the citizens of the state or federal law says about it.
Rather than what they did (allowing the gubernatorial nominees to appoint their running mates after they are nominated) I would favor having them run together in the primary on a ticket, just like in the general election, a system used in several states.
That would allow the gubernatorial nominees to choose who they want and not risk being paired with someone they don’t want (the only reason they did this is because of Scott Lee Cohen, after the Laroosie won the rat nomination in ‘86 it’s surprising how they let Cohen happen, it speaks to how ignored the post is) yet still have the choice be accountable to the primary voters, who should choose every candidate their party nominates.
I would also find some real powers for the LT to have.
If you believe that, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you. Texas would’ve kept Ted Cruz out of the Senate under a 17th repeal and you think Indiana (which has had Dems winning the House with some frequency) would turn out Lugar for someone MORE Conservative ? You’d be lucky they’d not be sending Evan (if not Birch) Bayh as a replacement.
Simple. Dubya would’ve strongly urged the TX legislature to help his good friend Rove for helping him (much like how McKinley urged the OH leg to send his campaign manager Mark Hanna to the Senate). As for DewCrist, he strong-armed the legislators into supporting him in the Senate race. If the people had not been the deciders, Cruz would’ve never been anywhere near the Senate. Let’s face it, you guys can’t even sack a liberal RINO House Speaker (Straus), and you think you’d be sending Cruz types ? It would be exactly the same, with RINOs and Democrats joining forces over Tea Partiers. Bad idea.
You’re not empowering “states”, you’re empowering politicians, and this the last thing I want to do at this point. There’s a reason this was ultimately a failure.
Are you kidding ? The AZ legislature would keep returning him until he’s carried out feet-first. That’s what you get with a repeal of the 17th. Stalinists and RINOs.
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.