Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New Hampshire Senate Kills In-State Tuition Bill for Illegal Aliens
Top Right News ^ | 05-12-2014 | Brian Hayes

Posted on 05/12/2014 8:19:56 PM PDT by montag813

senate_chamber

by Brian Hayes | Top Right News

The New Hampshire Senate spiked a bill making students who entered the country illegally eligible for in-state tuition rates at University System of New Hampshire schools

The Senate's action rejected the N.H. House that had passed the same bill earlier this year.

The move surprised some observers and showed how little influence pro-amnesty U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has over the upper house in her state. Ayotte had supported the bill.

(Excerpt) Read more at toprightnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aliens; immigration; newhampshire; tuition

1 posted on 05/12/2014 8:19:56 PM PDT by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: montag813

good


2 posted on 05/12/2014 8:21:18 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Makes no sense that foreign criminals get better college tuition rates than someone from the next state.


3 posted on 05/12/2014 8:22:53 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

They passed a motion to support Arizona’s immigration law in 2012.

The NH senate won big in 2010 and will win big in 2014. So they still had a majority. The NH House is different.

Also the Governor is up for re-election every 2 years in Vermont and NH.

Kelly Ayotte is in big trouble. I would be content if Scott Brown beats Shaheen 51%-49% and Shaheen comes back an beats Ayotte in a better year for Dems in 2016.

But I hope Ayotte loses the primary. Hopefully some Democrats will vote against neocon Ayotte.

Ayotte:”illegals will get deported if they dont pay taxes”.


4 posted on 05/12/2014 8:25:03 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

I mean the crossover Democrat primary voters maybe they will be sick of dimwit Ayotte and her neocon ways.


5 posted on 05/12/2014 8:25:56 PM PDT by ObamahatesPACoal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal

Ya freakin’ hoo!


6 posted on 05/12/2014 8:27:57 PM PDT by acapesket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: montag813

They came to this country as an act of love.


7 posted on 05/12/2014 8:30:37 PM PDT by Veggie Todd (The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. TJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ObamahatesPACoal
Ayotte:”illegals will get deported if they dont pay taxes”.<<

LMAO..yup!..logic escapes me

8 posted on 05/12/2014 8:47:37 PM PDT by M-cubed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: montag813

I am genuinely surprised.


9 posted on 05/12/2014 8:59:50 PM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; sickoflibs
>> showed how little influence pro-amnesty U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) has over the upper house in her state. Ayotte had supported the bill. <<

But...but... the anti-17thers have "informed" me that state legislatures are now completely powerless since the 17th amendment passed, and defer to whatever the federal government wants! As long as the 17th is in place, state governments would NEVER defy the feds.

You mean to tell me -- GASP -- the NH state legislature votes however they please and doesn't give a hoot what their U.S. Senators want?!!

Darn it, there goes reality again, interfering with the fantasy world of the anti-17thers.

10 posted on 05/12/2014 9:07:37 PM PDT by BillyBoy (Looking at the weather lately, I could really use some 'global warming' right now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

At least there are some Americans who are not intimidated by the illegal aliens.


11 posted on 05/12/2014 9:34:53 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Obama's smidgens are coming home to roost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

Every now and again, something goes right.


12 posted on 05/12/2014 9:47:29 PM PDT by upchuck (Support ABLE, the Anybody But Lindsey Effort. Yes, we are the ABLE!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy; campaignPete R-CT; fieldmarshaldj; AuH2ORepublican

A unanimous vote, 24-0, to essentially table the bill.

And the chamber is only 13-11 Republican.

The bill had passed the rat controlled House.


13 posted on 05/12/2014 10:40:35 PM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy
Are you sure you know what the 17th amendment is? It allows for the direct election of senators who used to be appointed by the states (in various and assorted ways). What that meant was that the states (not state legislatures) no longer had representation for their interests in congress so it removed an important check to Federal power. You see, the senate represented the states and the house represented the people, creating something our Founders called "checks and balances", which was an important concept in the constitution. I have never heard anyone say that the 17th amendment caused state legislatures to be powerless and would never defy the fed, that is nonsensical as the legislature is not the entirety of state government.

I guess a pro-17th amendment person such as yourself can point to all of the beneficial aspects of the amendment since 1913? After all our constitution and our country has done so well since then.

14 posted on 05/13/2014 3:23:02 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Durus; fieldmarshaldj
>> I guess a pro-17th amendment person such as yourself can point to all of the beneficial aspects of the amendment since 1913? <<

You want to help him out here, Field? There can probably be dozens of examples since 1913 of patriotic conservatives who never would have gotten anywhere near the U.S. Senate if it were up to state legislatures to make that decision. Examples include Senator James Buckley (Conservative-NY), Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL), Ted Cruz (R-TX), etc., etc. It would be a cold day in hell before the state legislatures of those states ever appointed them Senator.

15 posted on 05/13/2014 10:30:24 AM PDT by BillyBoy (Looking at the weather lately, I could really use some 'global warming' right now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Durus; BillyBoy; Impy

Durus, are you aware of WHY the 17th was enacted ? It had long ago ceased to be what you described. The Senate was filled with partisan hacks, bosses, rich guys buying seats representing individual special interests, everything BUT the “states.” The whole country knew what a joke it was by the 1910s and how completely out of touch that body was, and this was the only viable way to rectify the situation and make Senators accountable.


16 posted on 05/13/2014 12:06:54 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: BillyBoy

Are you kidding? How could you possibly know who would be appointed? Crystal ball? Complete spurious speculation without an iota of proof?


17 posted on 05/14/2014 5:36:25 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

That is how it was sold to the American public. In reality however senators are no more accountable today then they were to legislatures, and 17th complete ignored the basic check and balance concept that the Senate was designed to represent the interest of the states, not the people.


18 posted on 05/14/2014 5:40:55 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Durus; Impy; BillyBoy

It’s very easy to figure out if you pay close attention to the individual states, what party maintains the legislative majority and those in the power structure. Texas, for example, would be sending two RINOs to the Senate — Karl Rove (as a thank-you to Dubya, much in the same way that Ohio sent Mark Hanna as a thank-you to President McKinley) and David Dewhurst (as the sitting Lieutenant Governor, who pressured virtually the entire GOP caucus into endorsing him for the race over Ted Cruz — and thank heavens that the people and not the elitist politicians had final say over that race).

This is the reality of what a repeal would mean, and that doesn’t even begin to cover the rest of the states. Democrat states would send ultraleftist Stalinists and Republican states would send big government RINOs, each feeding at the trough trying to suck as much money as possible from the Feds (money that ain’t there). It would be a nightmare above and beyond anything currently there.


19 posted on 05/14/2014 11:38:24 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Durus; Impy; BillyBoy

It was precisely that “check and balance” you cited that ended long before the repeal of the 17th. Senators were doing as THEY pleased, often to advance their own personal interests, not the states. The elections themselves were sideshows by the end of the 19th century. It wasn’t “sold” to the public, they could see what a joke it was with their own eyes and were demanding direct accountability to ending the corrupt practices.

The ideal of the Founding Fathers was to have said members serving the explicit interests of the states, and that they were to effectively serve at the pleasure of the given party or ideological majority of the state legislatures, and if they did not vote as asked, they were to gracefully step aside. Some members actually did just that, but only very early on, and then many more refused to give up their power or guaranteed terms and held on, regardless of how the legislatures wanted them to vote.


20 posted on 05/14/2014 11:52:08 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: All
 photo owallaliens.png

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


21 posted on 05/14/2014 11:54:01 AM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
It's pure speculation. We have no idea what the make up of the Republican party would be if we had a Senate representing the states for the last 100 years. I know that there is a lot of legislation that would have had a really hard time getting through the Senate that we have to deal with now. Which of course was the intent of the 17th amendment. Even now there are a some state legislatures that are far more conservative than the senators that represent the state.

I don't think that speculation is a good reason to have removed a fundamental check and balance when the result of the amendment could hardly be viewed as positive. Our freedoms have diminished greatly in the last 100 years, far more than they had in the previous 100 years, and this was certainly part of the problem.

22 posted on 05/15/2014 7:30:08 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Without the states being represented it breaks a system you call flawed and replaces it with something ignores the entire concept of how the government was supposed to work. Even the statement that the system was flawed is historically dubious when you weed through the pure propaganda based justifications for the blatant usurpation of State powers.

We end up with a system where even the intent of checks and balances is removed, yet we a Senate that is more corrupt than it has ever been....yet some people still defend the 17th amendment. It's mind boggling.

23 posted on 05/15/2014 7:45:47 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Durus; Impy; BillyBoy
"It's pure speculation. We have no idea what the make up of the Republican party would be if we had a Senate representing the states for the last 100 years."

I'm explicitly addressing what you would get with repeal NOW. Your side is fine with all these high-minded notions of what you BELIEVE would happen with a return to legislative elections without facing the bleak reality of the people that would be sent (and more importantly, whom would NOT be sent). You would not have Henry Clays or John C. Calhouns, you would have an execrable collection of left-wing RINOs and ultra-left-wing Democrats, almost completely insulated and unaccountable. Puppets or puppeteers, take your pick, all vigorously working to drain the treasury dry to get as much pork as possible for their states.

As bad as you think things are now, you have no idea how much worse they could be with repeal. The notion of empowering politicians even more than they are now is repugnant. If the Founding Fathers were around to see, I think they would agree. What they wanted in a Senate is not how it turned out in practice, and the 17th was the only way to correct the corrupted and decayed situation as best as could be done.

24 posted on 05/15/2014 12:27:54 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
I'm explicitly addressing what you would get with repeal NOW".

Explicitly we would regain an important check and balance, that the 17th Amendment didn't even bother to address. It's like it was written by complete buffoons who had never read the constitution and had no idea what it was trying to accomplish.

Your side is fine with all these high-minded notions of what you BELIEVE would happen with a return to legislative elections without facing the bleak reality of the people that would be sent (and more importantly, whom would NOT be sent). You would not have Henry Clays or John C. Calhouns, you would have an execrable collection of left-wing RINOs and ultra-left-wing Democrats, almost completely insulated and unaccountable.

My Side? I am only speaking for myself and only making a constitutional argument, I don't have an ideological premise other than that. You are the one making wild speculations as to the make up of the Senate, regardless have you looked at the make up of the Senate now? Can you honestly make a claim that they aren't puppets or puppeteers because they are directly elected? Could they possible spend more time trying to get more pork for their states? Repealing something that ignored a basic concept of the constitution in favor of some supposed harm that might be done, doesn't address the harm that has already been done, and that harm is historically obvious.

As bad as you think things are now, you have no idea how much worse they could be with repeal. The notion of empowering politicians even more than they are now is repugnant.

Pelosi, Boxer, Reid etc. could be worse? Sorry I beg to differ, the 17th amendment has created a far worse situation than we were ever in previously. Repealing it would bring back a vital check and balance and certainly doesn't empower Senators beyond the original intent of the constitution.

If the Founding Fathers were around to see, I think they would agree. What they wanted in a Senate is not how it turned out in practice, and the 17th was the only way to correct the corrupted and decayed situation as best as could be done.

What the founding father intended was that the states have representation in congress and the 17th broke that invalidating the entire concept of congress. You think they would really approve of that? If Thomas Jefferson's ghost appeared and asked "why would you even keep the senate if you were going to directly elect them, doesn't that make it just like the house? What about apportionment which was an important part of representation? Regardless Sir, what did your muddling get you? What are the fruits of your labors"" would you rethink your plainly broken axioms? For all of your histrionics about a "corrupt and decayed" situation, the 17th amendment was really just power play to increase the power of the Federal government at the expense of the States. As a result, 100 years later we are quickly becoming a police state, and our Senate is a cesspool of scum never even imagined in 1913.

If nothing else this should show anyone that the founders knew what they were doing and the 17th was a monumental blunder.

25 posted on 05/15/2014 1:15:43 PM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Durus; Impy; AuH2ORepublican; sickoflibs; BillyBoy
"Explicitly we would regain an important check and balance, that the 17th Amendment didn't even bother to address. It's like it was written by complete buffoons who had never read the constitution and had no idea what it was trying to accomplish."

Your recovery of a "check and balance" would exist only on paper. In practice, it would be a fantasy. How would you have addressed the corruption going on in the Senate which snowballed throughout the latter half of the 19th century into the 20th ? What about the situations that occurred in Delaware which kept that state from even sending members to DC ?

"My Side? I am only speaking for myself and only making a constitutional argument, I don't have an ideological premise other than that."

Yes, your side. The small group of FReepers floating this same anti-17th flight of fancy, but refuse to deal with the reality of what that would entail today were it to occur. If you have an idea or notion about something and trot it out, you should consider what it would lead to. Now I'm sure you believe it would do all these wonderful things, but you're fooling yourself, because you're not weighing it against the political realities of the present time. As I tell the anti-17thers, what you want is a restoration of a Senate elected in 1789. Consider the realities of those that were participating in the political process then vs. now (or even vs the 1910s). In order to remotely restore a Senate that fits your notions of what it should be, you'd have to drastically alter the people participating in the electoral process. Personally, I don't think THAT would be a bad idea.

"You are the one making wild speculations as to the make up of the Senate, regardless have you looked at the make up of the Senate now?"

I'm not making wild speculations, I'm giving specific names based on the current dynamics and reality. You, however, have not given me any names (which is another problem with your side -- your Senators are nameless, fictional individuals that don't exist in our reality).

"Can you honestly make a claim that they aren't puppets or puppeteers because they are directly elected? Could they possible spend more time trying to get more pork for their states? Repealing something that ignored a basic concept of the constitution in favor of some supposed harm that might be done, doesn't address the harm that has already been done, and that harm is historically obvious."

My reply remains the same, yes, they can and will be worse. Every member now could be removed by being voted out of office by the people. You remove that option completely by repeal of the 17th, and in those states with heavily gerrymandered majorities (Dem), you guarantee the worst of the worst a job for perpetuity. You're empowering the political class.

"Pelosi, Boxer, Reid etc. could be worse? Sorry I beg to differ, the 17th amendment has created a far worse situation than we were ever in previously. Repealing it would bring back a vital check and balance and certainly doesn't empower Senators beyond the original intent of the constitution."

Pelosi is not a member of the Senate, but I'll tell you right now that she would easily make the transition, because with a hyper-Dem legislature in California, cancers like her would float to the top. Reid would also not have to worry, because the Dems have had a combined majority in the NV legislature for many years. Fortunately, the voters of NV can bypass that gerrymandered majority and elect Republicans.

"What the founding father intended was that the states have representation in congress and the 17th broke that invalidating the entire concept of congress."

Nope. It was the Senators that broke it. When their own personal agendas and power-seeking overtook their sense of duty to representing and protecting their state interests against growing federal encroachment, they destroyed what the Founding Fathers intended. It was already broke by the Civil War.

"You think they would really approve of that? If Thomas Jefferson's ghost appeared and asked "why would you even keep the senate if you were going to directly elect them, doesn't that make it just like the house? What about apportionment which was an important part of representation? Regardless Sir, what did your muddling get you? What are the fruits of your labors"" would you rethink your plainly broken axioms? For all of your histrionics about a "corrupt and decayed" situation, the 17th amendment was really just power play to increase the power of the Federal government at the expense of the States. As a result, 100 years later we are quickly becoming a police state, and our Senate is a cesspool of scum never even imagined in 1913."

My histrionics ? You cannot get back what was broken long before the 17th unless you are prepared to fundamentally transform and return the country to what it was 200 years ago and allowing only that certain class of individuals to participate in the decisionmaking process.

"If nothing else this should show anyone that the founders knew what they were doing and the 17th was a monumental blunder."

The blunder was not seeing men corrupting the system early on long before the 17th was on the horizon. That thing about power corrupting, y'know...

26 posted on 05/15/2014 2:10:41 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Durus

The founders knew what they were doing when they made the constitution amendable.


27 posted on 05/15/2014 6:09:33 PM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Impy

They also knew what they were doing when they created a system of check and balances and a congress made of directly elected congressmen, and a Senate appointed by the state. The 17th amendment ignores both in a blatant power grab.


28 posted on 05/15/2014 6:21:52 PM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Durus; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; sickoflibs

It was changed for good reason because it was working badly. Massive corruption and drawn out battles that left seats empty. And it would be much worse today. Politicians are scum, I’ll make my own choice of Senator thank you very much.

Magic time warp to an idealized version of the past is not the answer to America’s problems.


29 posted on 05/15/2014 6:30:02 PM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
"Your recovery of a "check and balance" would exist only on paper. In practice, it would be a fantasy. How would you have addressed the corruption going on in the Senate which snowballed throughout the latter half of the 19th century into the 20th ? What about the situations that occurred in Delaware which kept that state from even sending members to DC?

It would exist in observable reality. The Senate would be appointed by the state. The House would represent the people. That IS a very real check and balance, not a fantasy, regardless if you agree or not. Your continuous claims to corruption of the Senate before the 17th amendment compared to today is completely erroneous and absurd. It is hard to recall a worse den of thieves that have been directly elected to the Senate (or congress) then what we have now, and it certainly didn't exist prior to 1913. As to your horrible "situation" of Delaware not sending a delegation to the Senate do you really think the world is going to end if some state can't get it's act together enough to send members? It's their representation, it's up to them to send them or not. Regardless it rarely happened, although it is constantly held up as a shining example of why we "had" to get rid of state representation although it makes absolutely no sense at all.

Yes, your side. The small group of FReepers floating this same anti-17th flight of fancy, but refuse to deal with the reality of what that would entail today were it to occur. If you have an idea or notion about something and trot it out, you should consider what it would lead to. Now I'm sure you believe it would do all these wonderful things, but you're fooling yourself, because you're not weighing it against the political realities of the present time. As I tell the anti-17thers, what you want is a restoration of a Senate elected in 1789. Consider the realities of those that were participating in the political process then vs. now (or even vs the 1910s). In order to remotely restore a Senate that fits your notions of what it should be, you'd have to drastically alter the people participating in the electoral process. Personally, I don't think THAT would be a bad idea.

Flight of fancy? The 17th amendment has altered the republic for the worse and it completely changed the concept of congress to something completely irrational and not in step with the rest of the constitution. Do you really think you can rationalize that our nation is better off now than in 1913? Any speculation about who the states would or would not send to the senate is hypothetical, however, the republican party would have controlled the senate more often than it has historically, and it would be controlling it now based on pure numbers. Regardless your characterization of my intent is incorrect. While it would be nice to have a pure as driven snow, selfless Senate filled with genius statesmen, that isn't a rational desire. My intent is restore reason to the concept of congress by restoring representation to the states, and putting back in place a real check and balance to the ever increasing power of the federal government.

Any rational person with a knowledge of the constitution and intent of the founder wouldn't support the 17th amendment.

I'm not making wild speculations, I'm giving specific names based on the current dynamics and reality. You, however, have not given me any names (which is another problem with your side -- your Senators are nameless, fictional individuals that don't exist in our reality).

You are making wild speculation. You don't know enough about every state legislature to know who would and would be sent. That you think you do demonstrates your irrationality. Can I give names? Of course I can't as it's unknowable but if I wanted to simply makes some names up they would be just as plausible as yours.

My reply remains the same, yes, they can and will be worse. Every member now could be removed by being voted out of office by the people. You remove that option completely by repeal of the 17th, and in those states with heavily gerrymandered majorities (Dem), you guarantee the worst of the worst a job for perpetuity. You're empowering the political class.>br>

Just like any member might not be sent back by the State legislature. The legislature didn't appoint Senetors for life after all...unlike the current incumbency we are seeing in the Senate now. Cdertainly you aren't suggesting that prior to 1913 people held Senate office longer Senators after the 17th amendment. That isn't historically accurate at all. Further gerrymandering applies just as much if not more to direct elections.

Pelosi is not a member of the Senate, but I'll tell you right now that she would easily make the transition, because with a hyper-Dem legislature in California, cancers like her would float to the top. Reid would also not have to worry, because the Dems have had a combined majority in the NV legislature for many years. Fortunately, the voters of NV can bypass that gerrymandered majority and elect Republicans.

Pelosi is a member of the house that is elected the same way as Senators and is as dirty as anyone that has ever held office. Reid has lied, bribed, taken kick backs, and overtly cheated at elections. One can go on and on about the scum that fills congress and it makes the pre-17th amendment congress look like children that occasionally stole an extra cookie from the cookie jar. Could NV directly elect a senator that isn't a Democrat? Sure. Will it? Hell no, and that is a very important point. If a state leans Democrat then it's representation can be Democrat. My desire isn't that anyone of any party not be able to elect or appoint who it wants. My point is that without the state having representation you might as well just have a house or representatives and call it a day.

Nope. It was the Senators that broke it. When their own personal agendas and power-seeking overtook their sense of duty to representing and protecting their state interests against growing federal encroachment, they destroyed what the Founding Fathers intended. It was already broke by the Civil War.

BS. It was "progressive" media like Hearst and Politicians like Roosevelt making a mountain over molehills that made the 17th amendment possible, it was a jaded perversion of our constitution, that fundamentally altered balance of power between the Fed and the States. Not to mention the direct contravention of article V of the Constitution.

My histrionics ? You cannot get back what was broken long before the 17th unless you are prepared to fundamentally transform and return the country to what it was 200 years ago and allowing only that certain class of individuals to participate in the decision making process.

Repealing the 17th amendment is good enough start.

The blunder was not seeing men corrupting the system early on long before the 17th was on the horizon. That thing about power corrupting, y'know...

The corruption then doesn't hold a candle to the corruption now, so as the 17th was a monumental failure let's get rid of it.

30 posted on 05/15/2014 7:24:23 PM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Durus; Impy; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy
RE :”As bad as you think things are now, you have no idea how much worse they could be with repeal. The notion of empowering politicians even more than they are now is repugnant.
.....
Pelosi, Boxer, Reid etc. could be worse? Sorry I beg to differ, the 17th amendment has created a far worse situation than we were ever in previously. Repealing it would bring back a vital check and balance and certainly doesn't empower Senators beyond the original intent of the constitution.”

WTF does the 17th amendment have to do with Pelosi?

Newsflash, she is elected by a house congressional district's voters.

31 posted on 05/15/2014 7:29:53 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : 'I never said that you can keep your doctor . Republicans lie about me ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Durus; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; AuH2ORepublican
RE :”Are you kidding? How could you possibly know who would be appointed? Crystal ball? Complete spurious speculation without an iota of proof?”

Your idea of giving away my vote to the Maryland state legislature, both houses heavily Dem, does nothing for me.

We have can have little or no idea how that would work out in the long run, and there is no guarantee that the GOP will hold on to the purple states that they have control of now in the next 10 years or so.

The grass always looks greener on the other side”

The Senate sure looks like a bunch of rich elitist whores which is stirring these fantasies, but this is just a pipe dream going no-where, will never happen

And please refrain from the “It (having no 17th) worked great in 1800 so it would work great now too”. I am not one of Marks drones.

32 posted on 05/15/2014 7:52:48 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : 'I never said that you can keep your doctor . Republicans lie about me ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Durus; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; Impy; AuH2ORepublican
RE :”Crystal ball? “

Krystal Ball is a commentator on MSNBC’s The Cycle.

I know BillyBoy didn't hear it from her.

33 posted on 05/15/2014 8:10:19 PM PDT by sickoflibs (Obama : 'I never said that you can keep your doctor . Republicans lie about me ')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Durus; sickoflibs; campaignPete R-CT; Clemenza; Clintonfatigued; AuH2ORepublican; NFHale; Impy; ...
I'm entertaining this discussion far more than I should be, because it has reached the theater of the absurd. I was able to subside my laughter enough at the last response to try to give it a go, but I may cut it off before its conclusion simply because there is no reaching you. Believe me, I've heard every argument made over repeal, and not a one has ever been able to get around the reality of what it would mean today, because you're continuously applying an 18th century theory, failed in the 19th, repealed in the 20th.

"It would exist in observable reality. The Senate would be appointed by the state."

A state's legislature, which itself may not reflect the electorate in its makeup. Not a "state." You see, this is the problem here. You equate the legislature as being "the state" while I argue the state is itself, the people. In this case, the people at large.

"The House would represent the people. That IS a very real check and balance, not a fantasy, regardless if you agree or not."

The Senate is to check and balance the House, ideally.

"Your continuous claims to corruption of the Senate before the 17th amendment compared to today is completely erroneous and absurd."

Except that it happened, and often that was merely in how they managed to obtain election.

"It is hard to recall a worse den of thieves that have been directly elected to the Senate (or congress) then what we have now, and it certainly didn't exist prior to 1913."

Corruption then, corruption now. Go back to the Gilded Age and see how well regarded the Senate was.

"As to your horrible "situation" of Delaware not sending a delegation to the Senate do you really think the world is going to end if some state can't get it's act together enough to send members? It's their representation, it's up to them to send them or not. Regardless it rarely happened, although it is constantly held up as a shining example of why we "had" to get rid of state representation although it makes absolutely no sense at all."

You attached the modifier of "horrible." For the people of Delaware, it would certainly be a situation of import. With the people deciding their Senators, such a situation would not occur. This is another example of your definition of legislature equaling state.

"Flight of fancy? The 17th amendment has altered the republic for the worse and it completely changed the concept of congress to something completely irrational and not in step with the rest of the constitution."

So now you firmly put yourself in the camp of the 17th as the root of all evil where the last 100 years of this country is concerned. This is where you guys totally go off your proverbial rockers. It's pure silliness.

"Do you really think you can rationalize that our nation is better off now than in 1913?"

That is such a sweeping generalization of a query that it cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, but you want to tie it back to the "17th is the root of all evil."

"Any speculation about who the states would or would not send to the senate is hypothetical, however, the republican party would have controlled the senate more often than it has historically,"

After the 1920s, the GOP only occasionally held a majority of legislatures, and they would've mostly been in the minority. Not until the 1990s did they begin to show strength again for any elongated period, but in many states, they would be as shut out, and for perpetuity, as many Southern states used to be. To wit: for our Dem states, there would've been no GOP Senators as follows (CA-1960s, CT-early '70s, HI-pre-statehood, IL-'70s, MD-1890s, MA-1956, MN-pre '70s, NV-pre '80s, NJ-'90s, NM-1928, NY-1970, RI-1928/30, VT-1970, WV-1928), again just a few examples off the top of my head. I've analyzed the numbers elsewhere from time to time. Even those states that would send Republicans, what would pass for them would certainly be of the King Pork/Big gubmint/left-wing vintage. Especially now.

"and it would be controlling it now based on pure numbers. Regardless your characterization of my intent is incorrect. While it would be nice to have a pure as driven snow, selfless Senate filled with genius statesmen, that isn't a rational desire. My intent is restore reason to the concept of congress by restoring representation to the states, and putting back in place a real check and balance to the ever increasing power of the federal government."

You're not going to get a check and balance on the increasing power of the federal government with repeal, which is the main tenet of your argument. That frankly went out the window with the Civil War, long before the 17th.

"Any rational person with a knowledge of the constitution and intent of the founder wouldn't support the 17th amendment."

And yet this one does, because you leave out one enormous element: how it works. The Constitution was written for the express purpose of providing an amendment process. For things not covered at the time, or for things enacted and found unworkable. As I have cited, the Senate as a body was corrupted in the 19th century. The method by which Senators were elected became simply untenable. It didn't work anymore, and something had to be done about it.

"You are making wild speculation. You don't know enough about every state legislature to know who would and would be sent. That you think you do demonstrates your irrationality. Can I give names? Of course I can't as it's unknowable but if I wanted to simply makes some names up they would be just as plausible as yours."

Again, I'm knowledgeable enough about all of our states that I can indeed tell you the likely players. See, that is what I have spent years studying (and still do every day with each election). You take umbrage and utterly dismiss that I can, at will, give those names. Any state you name and I'll likely be able to tell you precisely whom the Senate would send with repeal. This again remains an enormous blind spot, willful naivete, on the subject at hand where your side is concerned. Some dismiss this entirely with the argument that they could care less who would sit in the Senate with repeal, so long as it is repealed. That it would essentially lack for any Conservatives doesn't matter. Well, it matters. We've already gifted the left enough, and this would be the cherry on top.

"Just like any member might not be sent back by the State legislature. The legislature didn't appoint Senetors for life after all...unlike the current incumbency we are seeing in the Senate now."

Early on, very early on, they did not. But the earliest Senators tried to abide by the Constitutional prescription and were fiercely loyal to their states. That went out the window before long, as I already outlined. Some states with single-party majorities for perpetuity started sending some members for ever increasing periods of time. When Missouri and Alabama were Jacksonian states, they sent two men for decades (Thomas Hart Benton and William Rufus de Vane King), and this was prior to the Civil War. Afterwards, in heavy GOP states, you had a similar situation of members occupying Senate seats for decades (with one member from Vermont staying in office in both bodies from prior to the Civil War up until his death before the turn of the century). Only in some states with a strong two-party system did you have an aggressive turnover, but the downside for those Senators is that they ended up having the least amount of power in contrast to the others.

"Certainly you aren't suggesting that prior to 1913 people held Senate office longer Senators after the 17th amendment."

As I wrote above, you did indeed have some Senators serving long stretches, protected by one-party states. Unless you consider one member serving, with only one brief interruption when he was an Ambassador, from 1819 to 1852 (King) as a "short time" or from 1821 to 1851 (Benton), or other 2 and 3 decade members. Curious the Founding Fathers didn't tackle the concept of term limits. I doubt they could've imagined the audacity of a person to agreeing to serve for decades on end in office, but that went on during your pre-17th Era of Utopia.

"That isn't historically accurate at all. Further gerrymandering applies just as much if not more to direct elections."

Well, that argument of yours just got obliterated.

"Pelosi is a member of the house that is elected the same way as Senators and is as dirty as anyone that has ever held office."

She's not elected statewide, but from an extremist one-party district in a heavily gerrymandered Dem state. She would obtain power in the exact manner that a CA Dem Senator would with repeal (you're actually making my point). Because California has not had a legislature made up of a GOP majority since Ronald Reagan was in his first term as Governor (roughly around 1967-69), that would've been the last time the GOP would've had any viable input. Indeed, you'd have Jerry Brown as the senior Senator today, ensconced in that body since he ran for it in 1982 hot off his failed two term disaster as Governor. The junior Senator would be none other than King Willie Brown, as a reward for his tenure as the dictatorial Speaker, stymieing the agendas of Govs. Deukmejian and Wilson. Boxer or Feinstein, well, they might take the next available opening, but let's face it, what would really be the difference ? Two screeching harpy moonbat females or two moonbat males ? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. Then again, with members of the legislature shameless running arms, Brown & Brown might be too sedate and "moderate" for that Stalinist hellhole.

"Reid has lied, bribed, taken kick backs, and overtly cheated at elections."

Of course, and he'd have also never have lost an election going back to 1974 when he first ran for the Senate. The Dem majority in the legislature would've sent him over ex-Gov. Paul Laxalt, a Conservative and the choice of the people, and that would've been that. You'd have gifted him 12 more years to wreak havoc nationwide. Even when the GOP has held narrow majorities in the State Senate, Reid has always managed to get the RINO contingent there to aid him, so no worries for him on the off chance they managed to try to oust him via a repeal.

"One can go on and on about the scum that fills congress and it makes the pre-17th amendment congress look like children that occasionally stole an extra cookie from the cookie jar."

One could. One could also imagine how much less those elitist Senators would have to worry about rolling the people every 6 years when they can just go back to the old way of bribery and threats of the legs. What fun.

"Could NV directly elect a senator that isn't a Democrat? Sure. Will it? Hell no, and that is a very important point. If a state leans Democrat then it's representation can be Democrat."

The point being that the corrupted and gerrymandered legislature of Nevada has the people (the state) themselves telling them they will send a Republican. It works out better that way. Now if only something could be done about the crooked cretins of Carson City like the Stalinists of Sacramento...

"My desire isn't that anyone of any party not be able to elect or appoint who it wants. My point is that without the state having representation you might as well just have a house or representatives and call it a day."

And again, you equate legislature with the state. I, as I have said endlessly, do not.

"BS. It was "progressive" media like Hearst and Politicians like Roosevelt making a mountain over molehills that made the 17th amendment possible, it was a jaded perversion of our constitution, that fundamentally altered balance of power between the Fed and the States. Not to mention the direct contravention of article V of the Constitution."

Rosebud ! By George, if it hadn't been for them meddling muckrakers and pesky Progs, we'd still have our great Senate today and everything would be sunshine and lollipops. Ignore all evidence that the Senators and their behavior (nevermind the corrupt legs) brought it all on themselves going back to the 19th century.

"Repealing the 17th amendment is good enough start."

What a horrid notion ! Who in their right mind would want to empower politicians at a time when they and their other allies in arms in blowing up the size and scope of gubmint beyond all proportion need to be STRIPPED of their powers ?

"The corruption then doesn't hold a candle to the corruption now, so as the 17th was a monumental failure let's get rid of it."

Yay ! Let's substitute one corruption for another. What do we gain ? Nothing ! When do we want it ? Now ! Sorry, Durus, it's a valiant effort, but very lame in the end.

34 posted on 05/15/2014 9:08:02 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; Durus; sickoflibs; campaignPete R-CT; Clemenza; Clintonfatigued; NFHale; Impy

Durus, DJ is corect that you can’t take the current legislature of a state as a proxy for the state itself. Remember how North Carolina elected Jesse Helms to the Senate in 1972 and reelected him in 1978, 1984, 1990 and 1996? Well, had Senate elections in NC been held in the state legislature, instead of allowing the citizens of NC to vote, Helms never would have come close to election, as the NC state legislature was dominated by the Democrats from the 1870s until 2011 (except for a brief interregnum after the 1894 elections in which a coalition of Republicans and Populists controlled the legislature), so NC would have continued to send liberal Democrats to the Senate to this day. Thanks to the 17th Amendment, the people of North Carolina, and not the Democrat politicians in the state legislature, have been able to decide who should represent the state in the U.S. Senate, and all Americans benefited from having the great Jesse Helms as the conservative lion of the Senate. With no 17th Anendment, Helms would have had to remain as a broadcaster for the Tobacco Radio Network instead of representing the people of his state in the U.S. Senate.


35 posted on 05/16/2014 5:02:10 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
You have no idea what would have happened had there been no 17th amendment. Was there a sale on crystal balls that I missed?

I could just as easily say that without the 17th amendment there wouldn't have been a depression, No Social Security, no prohibition, no rise of organized crime, no NFA, No ATF, No FBI, No rise of the welfare state, and the end result would have been the utter destruction of the Democrat party. Do I really think that all would have happened? Probably not, no...but at least it's somewhat plausible, unlike suggesting that if a law hadn't been passed in 1913 then a guy in 1972 might not have been appointed.

It's absurd to suggest that if the 17th amendment hadn't passed then absolutely everything that followed would be exactly the same, leading to the exact same political compositions of states legislatures and the exact same people running for office.

36 posted on 05/16/2014 5:45:26 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Durus

You’re a very silly person. It is pointless to continue this discussion if you believe that the Democrat legislature in North Carolina would have elected Jesse Helms to the Senate five times.


37 posted on 05/16/2014 6:30:26 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

getting rid of party lines on the ballot is a bigger deal and worthwhile goal than Am17 .... then the state capitols are less likely to control the state capitols. THe California topTwo primary thing would be great for CT


38 posted on 05/16/2014 6:39:41 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (Let the dead bury the dead. Let the GOP bury the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

“THe California topTwo primary thing would be great for CT”


Be careful of what you wish for .... Sure, maybe you could elect the less-bad Democrat in a few districts, but for the most part you’d still end up with one Dem and one Republican (and a liberal at that) in the run-off, with the Dem winning, since incumbent Dems are pretty good at keeping other Democrats off the ballot (although anything goes in an open-seat election). And in Republican districts, the RINO would have the best chance at election, particularly with Dems not even fielding a candidate (like they’re doing in Hanna’s NY-22 so that Hanna can win the general as the Independence Party nominee even if he loses the GOP primary to conservative Tenney, and as they did in McClintock’s CA-04 where they convinced the sole Dem candidate to drop out so that a liberal Republican makes the run-off and can beat McClintock with Democrat votes and a few Republican votes).

Besides, it is my opinion that a jungle-primary system, whether in the Louisiana style or the California style (the only differences between the two being that in LA (congressional) elections all candidates are listed in the general, and only if no one gets 50%+1 is there a run-off, several weeks later, between the top-two finishers, while in CA elections all candidates are listed in the primary, and even if someone gets over 50% there still is a general between the top-two), is unconstitutional, since it does not permit the citizens who, pursuant to the First Amendment, freely associated with each other to form a political party, from presenting their standard-bearer for election without members of other parties having a say on the matter.


39 posted on 05/16/2014 6:54:00 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

under equal protection 14th .... candidates without a party are at a disadvantage. Candidates with a party endorsement should not have that party listed on the ballot. Any more than the NRA can list all their candidates on the ballot.


40 posted on 05/16/2014 7:03:14 AM PDT by campaignPete R-CT (Let the dead bury the dead. Let the GOP bury the GOP.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
I'm entertaining this discussion far more than I should be, because it has reached the theater of the absurd. I was able to subside my laughter enough at the last response to try to give it a go, but I may cut it off before its conclusion simply because there is no reaching you. Believe me, I've heard every argument made over repeal, and not a one has ever been able to get around the reality of what it would mean today, because you're continuously applying an 18th century theory, failed in the 19th, repealed in the 20th.

Don't do me any favors, it started at absurd from my perspective. You are very smug in your premise that you know exactly what would have happened had the 17th amendment not been passed, and what would happen if it were to be repealed but any rational person knows that your position is arrogant at best.

A state's legislature, which itself may not reflect the electorate in its makeup. Not a "state." You see, this is the problem here. You equate the legislature as being "the state" while I argue the state is itself, the people. In this case, the people at large.

The constitution itself defines the States and the people as separate entities. That you think they are the same when they clearly are not, both in fact and in principle, might explain why you can't understand the fundamental concept of checks and balances the Constitution was written to incorporate.

The Senate is to check and balance the House, ideally.

Ideally the Senate was to balance the interest of the State against the interest of the People in the House. As it is now as both are directly elected they don't particularly balance anything.

Except that it happened, and often that was merely in how they managed to obtain election.

Historical evidence shows that while there were accusations there was very little proof of corruption when it come to elections. Compare that to now and the process is far more corrupt and in many cases legally corrupt.

Corruption then, corruption now. Go back to the Gilded Age and see how well regarded the Senate was.

How well regarded would it have been had there not been a concerted effort, that can be historically substantiated, to make the Senate look far worse than it was. Considering that the some of the same people that helped fund the communist "revolution" were behind the push of the 17th (and 16th) amendments, it should give a rational person pause especially now when we have the benefit of hindsight.

You attached the modifier of "horrible." For the people of Delaware, it would certainly be a situation of import. With the people deciding their Senators, such a situation would not occur. This is another example of your definition of legislature equaling state.

The people of Delaware were not being represented by Senators at the time, the state was. I don't actually equate the legislature as the entirety of the state, just a body of State government that at that time determined the States representation in Congress. Certainly a state failing to send Senators to congress (something that rarely happened) isn't cause enough to sweep away the original concept of congress.

So now you firmly put yourself in the camp of the 17th as the root of all evil where the last 100 years of this country is concerned. This is where you guys totally go off your proverbial rockers. It's pure silliness.

Except everything I said is demonstrably true and you are characterizing as something that wasn't said. The 17th did in fact change congress to something it was never intended to be and it completely removed the representation of the State in congress, therefore removing a real check against the power of the Federal government. That's a fact. I never claimed it was the root of all evil, although I would suggest that it sprang from the root of all evil.

That is such a sweeping generalization of a query that it cannot be answered with a simple yes or no, but you want to tie it back to the "17th is the root of all evil.

No...it really isn't a sweeping generalization at all. It would take a long time to list how many ways the government is worse and there is no way to balance it against those few things in government that are better. While not all if it directly related to the 17th amendment it certainly sprang from the same mindset. That you don't see this makes me question your rationality yet again.

After the 1920s, the GOP only occasionally held a majority of legislatures, and they would've mostly been in the minority. Not until the 1990s did they begin to show strength again for any elongated period, but in many states, they would be as shut out, and for perpetuity, as many Southern states used to be. To wit: for our Dem states, there would've been no GOP Senators as follows (CA-1960s, CT-early '70s, HI-pre-statehood, IL-'70s, MD-1890s, MA-1956, MN-pre '70s, NV-pre '80s, NJ-'90s, NM-1928, NY-1970, RI-1928/30, VT-1970, WV-1928), again just a few examples off the top of my head. I've analyzed the numbers elsewhere from time to time. Even those states that would send Republicans, what would pass for them would certainly be of the King Pork/Big gubmint/left-wing vintage. Especially now.

I've read a number of studies that refute your opinion based on historical make up of State legislatures, regardless the entire premise is based on the illogical concept that if the 17th amendment not been ratified then everything would have followed in exactly the same way, and that is simply wild eyed fantasy.

You're not going to get a check and balance on the increasing power of the federal government with repeal, which is the main tenet of your argument. That frankly went out the window with the Civil War, long before the 17th.

This isn't even a topic of debate, it's simple fact. If the 17th Amendment were repealed, the States would regain representation in Congress. I doubt it would be a pancea for all of our ills, but it literally would provide a check and balance that was stripped with the ratification of the 17th.

And yet this one does, because you leave out one enormous element: how it works. The Constitution was written for the express purpose of providing an amendment process. For things not covered at the time, or for things enacted and found unworkable. As I have cited, the Senate as a body was corrupted in the 19th century. The method by which Senators were elected became simply untenable. It didn't work anymore, and something had to be done about it.

I've been stating quite clearly how it was supposed to work and you have been arguing in support of breaking how it was supposed to work. The constitution does allow the constitution to be changed, obviously, that has never been in question. That is what we are debating after all. That being said, I think the 17th was either a spectacularly stupid change or, far more likely, a deliberate change to increase the power of the Federal government. Your statement that the method of electing senators was broken is historically incorrect.

Again, I'm knowledgeable enough about all of our states that I can indeed tell you the likely players. See, that is what I have spent years studying (and still do every day with each election). You take umbrage and utterly dismiss that I can, at will, give those names. Any state you name and I'll likely be able to tell you precisely whom the Senate would send with repeal. This again remains an enormous blind spot, willful naivete, on the subject at hand where your side is concerned. Some dismiss this entirely with the argument that they could care less who would sit in the Senate with repeal, so long as it is repealed. That it would essentially lack for any Conservatives doesn't matter. Well, it matters. We've already gifted the left enough, and this would be the cherry on top.

If the 17th amendment hadn't been ratified would we have entered WW1? I know you can't really answer that, just like you can't really answer what would have happened in every local and state race up until today had the 17th amendment not been ratified, just like you can't say what the make of congress will be in 2016 either with or without the repeal of the 17th amendment. That you can look at the make up of a state legislature today and make a good guess it's completely beside the point because with a repeal the state legislature wouldn't be choosing new Senators today.

Early on, very early on, they did not. But the earliest Senators tried to abide by the Constitutional prescription and were fiercely loyal to their states. That went out the window before long, as I already outlined. Some states with single-party majorities for perpetuity started sending some members for ever increasing periods of time. When Missouri and Alabama were Jacksonian states, they sent two men for decades (Thomas Hart Benton and William Rufus de Vane King), and this was prior to the Civil War. Afterwards, in heavy GOP states, you had a similar situation of members occupying Senate seats for decades (with one member from Vermont staying in office in both bodies from prior to the Civil War up until his death before the turn of the century). Only in some states with a strong two-party system did you have an aggressive turnover, but the downside for those Senators is that they ended up having the least amount of power in contrast to the others. ... As I wrote above, you did indeed have some Senators serving long stretches, protected by one-party states. Unless you consider one member serving, with only one brief interruption when he was an Ambassador, from 1819 to 1852 (King) as a "short time" or from 1821 to 1851 (Benton), or other 2 and 3 decade members. Curious the Founding Fathers didn't tackle the concept of term limits. I doubt they could've imagined the audacity of a person to agreeing to serve for decades on end in office, but that went on during your pre-17th Era of Utopia.

Out of the 25 longest serving members of the senate only William Allison (#24) served the entirety of his term before the 17th amendment was ratified. Only two other Senators in the top 25 started their terms before 1917 and continued to be elected after the 17th. Francis Warren (#13) served 23 years before the 17th and 16 years after. Ellison D. Smith (#22) served 4 years before the 17th and 31 years after. This alone completely refutes your argument, but consider this; prior to the 17th amendment incumbents were re-appointed approximately 70% of the time. After the 17th amendment the incumbent has won election 91% of the time.

Well, that argument of yours just got obliterated.

Right back at ya, except I'm historically correct.

One could. One could also imagine how much less those elitist Senators would have to worry about rolling the people every 6 years when they can just go back to the old way of bribery and threats of the legs. What fun.

Or one could simply look at all the Senators getting back into office at a much greater rate then before the 17th amendment and wonder why we continue with the failed change.

And again, you equate legislature with the state. I, as I have said endlessly, do not.

And again, I will go with the constitutional principle rather than your (plainly incorrect) opinion that you pulled out of who knows where.

Rosebud ! By George, if it hadn't been for them meddling muckrakers and pesky Progs, we'd still have our great Senate today and everything would be sunshine and lollipops. Ignore all evidence that the Senators and their behavior (nevermind the corrupt legs) brought it all on themselves going back to the 19th century.

Your attempt at humor is noted. Valiant effort to deflect. Regardless, factually it is very hard to find any actual evidence of election corruption prior to 1913. If I recall correctly only two elections were investigated and neither provided much in the way of hard evidence. Hardly justification for re-writing the constitution yet somehow it happened. That it also just happened to remove an important bulwark against and increase in federal power, and that Federal power just happened to expand at a rate never seen previously before is just pure circumstance I'm sure.

What a horrid notion ! Who in their right mind would want to empower politicians at a time when they and their other allies in arms in blowing up the size and scope of gubmint beyond all proportion need to be STRIPPED of their powers?

Repeal of the 17th amendment, quite literally, wouldn't increase either the power of the Senate or the power of Senators. The only thing it would do is change who the Senate represents.

Yay ! Let's substitute one corruption for another. What do we gain ? Nothing ! When do we want it ? Now ! Sorry, Durus, it's a valiant effort, but very lame in the end.

I'm not quite sure that you are as dense as all that. Very plainly we would regain State representation in congress the way the founders intended it to be. Without the State being represented there was no reason to create a bicameral Congress in the first place. All claims of (historically absent of proof) corruption prior to the 17th amendment and all very real corruption today aside, why are you so against the constitution as envisioned. Your protests of a "broken system" are demonstrably false, your protest of corruption are not historically supportable, your speculation as to what would happen if the 17th hadn't been ratified isn't plausible enough for a fantasy novel, and your failure to simply acknowledge the distinction between "The People" and "The States" makes me question your motive in this conversation and the sincerity of your position.

41 posted on 05/16/2014 9:41:50 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican

I’m a silly person? You are seriously suggesting that had the 17th amendment not been ratified that the make up of the legislature of SC would be exactly the same and Jesse Helms would be considering a career in office? I don’t even know where to begin at how silly that is.


42 posted on 05/16/2014 9:44:20 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: campaignPete R-CT

That’s an interesting idea.


43 posted on 05/16/2014 9:45:39 AM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Durus

First of all, Jesse Helms was from NC, not SC.

Second, do you really believe that voters in NC magically would have voted for Republicans for the state legislature throughout the 20th century just because the legislators elect U.S. Senators? That 17th-Amendment repeal sure is magical! Would it have helped Aramis Ramirez catch that foul popup in the 2003 NLCS? Because that would have been awesome—imagine, the Cubs in the World Series! You’ve convinced me, I won’t engage in rank speculation such as thinking that the myriad causes that resulted in North Carolinians voting Democrat for the state legislature over a 130-year period would not have evaporated instantly with the repeal of the 17th Amendment; I instead will limit my assumptions to things that logically follow, such as the elimination of all social ills and a new birth of freedom in the nation the second that those noble patriots in the state legislatures once again are entrusted with the election of U.S. Senators.


44 posted on 05/16/2014 11:50:22 AM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AuH2ORepublican
Just to be clear, because I'm having trouble actually believing this, you are honestly suggesting that had that had 17th amendment never been ratified the NC legislature would have appointed the exact same people, along with every other state legislature in America, every law that was passed would have been passed, every law that wasn't passed wouldn't have been passed, not one thing could have possibly changed, leading us up to the exact same moment in 1975 where Jesse Helms was ready to become a Senator but couldn't due to the evil of the constitution as written.

Remarkable.

I'm pretty sure believing in a personally made up alternate reality makes one, technically at least, delusional. Just sayin.

45 posted on 05/16/2014 1:00:28 PM PDT by Durus (You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality. Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Durus

Have you heard of the economic concept of ceteris paribus? Well, I’m saying that, all other things being equal, a state whose voters elected Democrats to the state legislature for a 130-year period would not have done a 180 and started electing Republicans halfway through that 130-year period just because the state legislature regained the power to elect U.S. Senators. It is risible that you can impute such magical powers to the repeal of the 17th Amendment. The number of voters who would switch from Democrat to Republican just because one of the umpteen things that state legislators do is elect U.S. Senators would be a very small number. In most states, governors get to appoint U.S. Senators in the case of a vacancy—how many voters switch allegiance just because one of the umpteen things that a governor does is appoint U.S. Senators? For decades voters in Massachusetts displayed their preference for electing liberal Democrats to the U.S. Senate, yet they still voted for Republicans for governor in 1990, 1994, 1998 and 2002, and it took the Democrat legislature to change the law (overriding the governor’s veto) so that the governor could not appoint a replacement Senator until the next general election. You are assuming that voters would react far differently with the repeal of the 17th Amendment and would begin to elect conservative Republican state legislators just because of two votes they cast in each six-year period, and that is a whopper of an assumption.


46 posted on 05/16/2014 1:38:24 PM PDT by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll defend your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Durus; AuH2ORepublican; Impy; BillyBoy

Durus, I will concede to you... that you can write a longer post than I. Other than that, you and I will never agree, and I’m not going to waste an hour of my time more on this pointless back and forth.

That you continue to reject the actual political dynamics of the legislatures where they would play a role in whom they would send to D.C. and use hyperbole at those that dare to explicitly cite names and facts shows why your argument is so fallacious.

Ultimately, repeal of the 17th does nothing to advance the cause of Conservatism (nor that of the states, despite what you may believe), the sole interest that will save the nation from itself, but serves only to increase the power of the political class, which has gone far beyond any logical or legitimate scope.

Maybe you have no particular problem having your legislature make decisions for you and choose your own elected officials, but I do. I do not trust mine, nor do I trust them to do what is right. I live in a legislative (State Senate) district that is under VRA control. What this means is that, as a White person, my vote does not count or matter, as it is drawn explicitly for Black persons, and only a Black (Ultraleft) Democrat may be elected from my district.

For you to suggest I cede the right granted to me in the 17th (which, btw, along with the Governor’s race are the only 3 offices I have any real say in in my state) is repugnant and elitist.


47 posted on 05/16/2014 3:00:53 PM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson