Posted on 06/27/2007 1:11:30 PM PDT by The Blitherer
Some of these that didn’t vote no on the first cloture look to be wanting to prove these amendments would not be approved and now are prepared to vote NO on cloture tomorrow. Keep up the pressure and thank those that are agreeing to vote NO!
Brownback is leaning ‘no’ as well. That could be #60
I got it from various articles I’ve read on FR. I’ve got it on Word and I’m updating it whenever I hear something new.
5:04pm update. Reid is asking Sessions to allocate some of his time to Grassley to talk about his amendment on employer verification. Kyl wants time to debate. Reid skips Sessions and gives time to Grassley and Kyl to make remarks “for debate only.”
Grassley: “Thank you for the kindness…I was promised by the senator from Penn and senator from Mass that I would have an opportunity to offer an amendment…that promise has been kept. But no opportunity to debate the amendment…” Grassley is irked. Recounts that the compromise package that he agreed to was not what ended up being produced back in April. I was here in 1986 when we had amnesty, as we have in this current bill. Resulted in more illegal immigration…I’m not one who wants to make that mistake again. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck. If it looks like amnesty, talks like amnesty, it is amnesty. And it is amnesty.”
Kyl objects to Grassley amendment.
4:39pm update. Menendez-Obama-Feingold amendment is tabled. Sessions now has 30 minutes for debate only.
Meantime, North Carolina readers are e-mailing that Burr’s office is telling them he is a no vote on cloture tomorrow.
I bet they all got to read it before they voted too.
the 17th amendment that is
Tell you what, I'll take a very flawed process over a fatally flawed process any day...
There’s a difference between the 17th Amendment process, which was instituted by the people of the United States — and — “fatally flawed legislators” whom we presently have.
The solution is not in changing the process back to its originally flawed origins, but rather in the election of the Senators. Time to get the “fatally flawed” Senators out of there...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Just say NO to Illegal Alien Amnesty!! Keep calling!! It’s NOT OVER!!
U.S. Senate switchboard: (202) 224-3121
U.S. House switchboard: (202) 225-3121
White House comments: (202) 456-1111
Find your House Rep.: http://www.house.gov/writerep
Find your US Senators: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Toll free to the US Senate:
1-800-882-2005. (Spanish number)
1-800-417-7666. (English number)
Courtesy of a pro-amnesty group, no less!!
“There’s a difference between the 17th Amendment process, which was instituted by the people of the United States — and — “fatally flawed legislators” whom we presently have.
The solution is not in changing the process back to its originally flawed origins, but rather in the election of the Senators. Time to get the “fatally flawed” Senators out of there...”
The founders were infinitely wiser than the idiots who pass for “statesmen” or “leaders” in these times. The House of Representatives was intended to be the legislative body in closest touch with the people. The Senate was intended to be the legislative body in touch with the specific interests of each state. The 2 senators from each state were intended to be selected by the State Legislature who were individually selected by the citizens of each state.
Now we have two legislative bodies that are both “popularly” elected, the only difference being the length of time in office. In other words, our entire Congress is beholden to the underwriters of the campaigns of the individual candidates. The founders anticipated this disaster and created obstacles and buffers to deter this from happening.
No, ST, you are only half-correct. The problem IS partly the "fatally flawed" Senators, and any other elected officials. It was not, however, the original Constitutional senatorial selection process. That was not flawed, it was correct because it implemented the federalist conception of the States having a representative body in Congress to counter the People's representative body, the House of Representatives.
When the Senate went to direct popular election, the States lost their representation in Congress, and we then had two bodies answerable to popular vote. This removed a major pillar of the checks and balances division of powers embodied in the Constitution.
There has never been a system of government which was impervious to subversion if the people participating in it were corrupt and evil. Repealing the 17th Amendment will not "fix" the problem of flawed, corrupt Senators, nor the problem of the flawed and corrupt populace which elects them.
It would, however, repair some of the structural damage to the foundational underpinnings of our Constitutional federal republic. For that reason alone it is the right thing to do.
As for the problem of "flawed" Senators, that won't be solved until a substantial portion of our populace faces up to and deals with our own flaws.
The founders anticipated this disaster and created obstacles and buffers to deter this from happening.
Obviously they must have missed one important thing -- the Amendment process to the Constitution. It seems they slipped on that one..., huh?
Regards,
Star Traveler
It would, however, repair some of the structural damage to the foundational underpinnings of our Constitutional federal republic. For that reason alone it is the right thing to do.
And then, after the "people" do that, they're going to have to add one more amendment to the Constitution and outlaw "Constitutional Amendments" to prevent any more unwise changes... right?
Regards,
Star Traveler
Thanks for the ping.
I’d be really surprised if he actually votes nay, given what he has said publicly and privately about it.
I can’t imagine that me telling him, several times, that he would never see another check or vote from me if he helped this abomination pass, would make much of an impression.
(Boy, that’s a tortured sentence, but I’m too exhausted to figure out how to fix it.)
Maybe he just came to his senses, remembered that he is supposed to be a conservative.
” The founders anticipated this disaster and created obstacles and buffers to deter this from happening.
Obviously they must have missed one important thing — the Amendment process to the Constitution. It seems they slipped on that one..., huh? “
No! Their obstacles and buffers were successful from 1789 until 1913. That’s a very long time with respect to the typical half-life of a post-enlightenment western democratic government! We’ve been so spoiled by the foresight of our founders that we fail to realize how amazing it is that our institutions have remained intact for so long.
Sad but so
The Founders distrusted direct democracy for a reason—the Senate we have now is the reason. The HOUSE was supposed to be the voice of the people and elected every 2 years because things can change rapidly. Now we have another HOUSE that is in power for 6 years without having to face the voters.
And then, after the "people" do that, they're going to have to add one more amendment to the Constitution and outlaw "Constitutional Amendments" to prevent any more unwise changes... right?
Not at all. Your assertion simply "does not follow" logically from my stated premise.
As I stated in my previous post, the issue of "flawed" public officials is independent of the structure of the selection system, as long as the people doing the selecting are "good people" who then choose "good people". As President John Adams put it: "Our system of government was made for a moral and righteous people. It will serve for no other."
Will the current system of direct election of Senators work well if the voters choose good people? Of course it will. Will the original system of having the State legislatures choose Senators work well if they also choose good people? Yes, it will.
However, under the current system the States, as sovereign entities, no longer have representation in the federal government, and that constitutes serious damage to the system of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of too much power in the federal government at the expense of the States.
This week we are getting a first-hand demonstration of the dangers this presents to our rights and freedoms in the Senate illegal alien bill debacle. Not only are the Senators no longer answerable to the States, they're no longer answerable to the people. Their progression to that point was completely logical and foreseeable.
The sad fact is that human nature is a constant - corrupt people will always gravitate to government for their own selfish reasons. This is true regardless of the selection system. Thus, the real question becomes "Do you want these flawed, corrupt people to be in positions of power in an all-powerful centralized federal leviathan state, or do you at least want them operating with some measure of constraint from the States they ostensibly represent?"
To me, the choice is clear. The federal government has usurped too much power from the States and the people, and anything which helps devolve some of that power back to them is to be desired. Repealing the 17th Amendment and letting the State legislatures once again select the Senators would help, although no one claims it would be a cure for all the nation's ills.
You obviously prefer, for your own reasons, to keep the current system, which enhances the centralized power of the federal government and diminishes the States and the people. That is your right and you are entitled to your opinion. However, arguing your case based on claims of excessive corruption is simply untenable.
There is not one whit less corruption in the Senate today than there was when the 17th Amendment was adopted to "fix" the problem. It didn't "fix" anything, but it certainly did significantly shift the balance of power away from the States to the federal government, which was its ulterior purpose all along.
The problem still remains with the Amendment process to the Constitution. If it’s amended by the people, that becomes the law regardless of what someone thinks about it — by the will of the people.
If one wanted to protect the original structure, then the Amendment process should not have been allowed. If it is allowed and the people change it, then the people have spoken. Not too much more to say about it, other than the people get the government that they want..., and thus, we’ve got what we have now...
Regards,
Star Traveler
LegendHasIt more like some amendments have been passed that he does not like or took out things that he did like to the point where he can no longer support the measure. We will have to wait to see what he does
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.