An Oldie but a Goodie...
To: 3D-JOY; abner; Abundy; AGreatPer; Albion Wilde; alisasny; ALlRightAllTheTime; AlwaysFree; ...
2 posted on
10/25/2007 3:51:51 PM PDT by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Repeal the Terrible Two - the 16th and 17th Amendments. Sink LOST! Stop SPP!)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Without an electoral college; we won’t need a senate.
To: x
4 posted on
10/25/2007 4:01:03 PM PDT by
Tolerance Sucks Rocks
(Repeal the Terrible Two - the 16th and 17th Amendments. Sink LOST! Stop SPP!)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
>"We should keep in mind that the Founding Fathers were of somewhat better caliber than the politician you are likely to see on television"
5 posted on
10/25/2007 4:01:20 PM PDT by
rawcatslyentist
(Hey Jessie, how much melanin do you have to have to form a socially acceptable lynch mob?)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“That was changed with the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, under the delusion that anything labeled “democratic ” was good.”
I thought that it had to do with scandals of that day but certainly the abuses of power that exists today are several times worse than a few minor scandals.
6 posted on
10/25/2007 4:13:38 PM PDT by
samm1148
(Pennsylvania-They haven't taxed air--yet)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Can you imagine if a Presidential race ended as close as the Fla count was in 2000? But instead of one state doing recounts, it would be every precinct in the country? All a candidate would need is a few corrupt precincts in out-of-the-way places, and they could steal an election this way.
9 posted on
10/25/2007 5:22:36 PM PDT by
narby
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
10 posted on
10/25/2007 5:27:53 PM PDT by
JSDude1
(When a liberal represents the Presidential Nominee for the Republicans; THEY'RE TOAST)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
an oldie but a goodieA very "goodie". I think the 17th amendment was the biggest constitutional mistake we've made. If only one of the presidential candidates (Fred?) would come out against it.
Sigh, it won't happen. The country couldn't possibly understand why the Senate was originally set up to preserve the rights of the several states. Sigh.
13 posted on
10/25/2007 6:26:33 PM PDT by
BfloGuy
(It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect . . .)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
If you are in favor of getting rid of the 17th amendment, you have to explain how it improves things in the face of the state legislatures around the country passing anti-smoking laws that the majority of people are against, to name just one issue. I’m not saying direct election is all that great considering that I live in the People’s Republic of New York with our two marxists, and came from the People’s Republic of New Jersey which boasts a socialist and a cadaver for senators, but these state legislatures aren’t apt to be any better.
15 posted on
10/26/2007 9:06:32 AM PDT by
Dahoser
(America's great untapped alternative energy source: The Founding Fathers spinning in their graves.)
To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“If the state legislatures picked the senators, the states would have representatives in one house of Congress. Those senators would tend to be more protective of state (fragmented) power than direct representatives of “the people ” would be.”
NOW, I understand.
16 posted on
10/26/2007 10:29:44 AM PDT by
Sensei Ern
(http://www.myspace.com/reconcomedy - Ann Coulter is My Press Secretary)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson