Posted on 10/20/2007 3:45:27 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I don’t even know where to begin.
I’d much rather see an amendment instituting term limitations than this BS. Get rid of the electoral college, too.
Some education of the populace will be in order for this one, so as to lessen the effects of demagoguery.
I'm sure some would argue that. On the other hand, states would have had no basis for complaint until such time as there was a disagreement between their desired policy and the one desired by the feds. If the state legislature doesn't object to the Seventeenth Amendment prior to a particular Senator is seated following election, they could be reasonably regarded as having agreed to that particular Senator's appointment. That does not imply that they agreed to appoint all future Senators by plebiscite, however.
Remind me the basis for such an absurd ruling?
When the 17th amendment was passed, state legislatures were cesspools of corruption and cronyism, not spokesmen for the local citizenry. The men they appointed were mostly hacks. This would not be empowering to the people, especially since so many state legislative districts are rigidly gerrymandered for partisan advantage.
This is the only “campaign finance reform” that will accomplish its intended purpose.
Also, from Wikipedia on Baker v. Carr:
Having declared reapportionment issues justiciable in Baker, the court laid out a new test for evaluating such claims in Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964). In that case, the Court formulated the famous "one-man, one-vote" standard for legislative districting, holding that each individual had to be weighted equally in legislative apportionment. The Court decided that in states with bi-cameral legislatures both houses had to be apportioned on this standard, voiding the provision of the Arizona constitution which had provided for two state senators from each county, the California constitution providing for one senator from each county, and similar provisions elsewhere.
Hmmmm. So, how do we get it started?
What was their rationale? Did they just invent it out of thin air? If anything other than "one man one vote" would violate Fourteenth-Amendment "equal protection", why would later amendments be needed to give suffrage to blacks and women? It is totally implausible to suggest that the Founding Fathers were opposed to the idea of representation not based on population, since that concept is enshrined in the Constitution itself.
That is true, and the Senate would no doubt return to being a body of cronies (has it ever stopped being a body of hacks?) On the other hand, those cronies would serve different interests from the politicians in the House, and any extra energy spent by those bodies fighting each other would be energy not spent attacking the people.
That may be, but I don't know. If true, at least we could say it was the people's government, regardless of how bad. And the people get what they deserve if they allowed it to remain to the point where it could not be restored. There are doubts that our present from of government can be restored.
At this point, with so many awakened to the lop-sidedness of powers, I think there would be wide-spread support for a repeal. Folks these days are quick to become active and involved in preserving what the founders handed down to us, IMO, as evidenced by the hundreds of thousands of politically-active unpaid members of reform and restoration groups.
ping
The electoral college is one of the last bastions of the United States as a federal republic. Its abolition would be further descent into democracy. If not for the electoral college, John Kerry would have become President.
For anyone who does not understand the crucial difference between a democracy (which the United States is not) and a republic (which it was the intent of the founding fathers that the United States would be), I recommend Training Manual No. TM 2000-25 on Citizenship, issued by the U.S. War Department, November 30, 1928.
Absolutely! Repeal the 17th.
Not true. Bush beat Kerry in the popular vote. However, without the electoral college, we would have had Al Gore for President (shudder).
I stand corrected. Good principle, but I used a bad example. Details, details, ... they can bite you.
Why should women be denied suffrage? They do pay taxes, after all.
because it’s funny
Dream on, folks.
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.