Posted on 08/30/2016 7:37:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“The Senate was already corrupted by women’s suffrage by 1913.
Every state where women got the vote, government began to grow.
If the vote is not taken away from women, they will destroy the United States.”
You nailed it. But try taking that one away.
That was a great piece, thanks.
Well, Trump can win and turn this country around, but he can turn it back into a true republic?
How does one do that? The senators (spit) are never going to go back to the old days and obama does whatever he wants like it’s a joke.
What happens when we get another bad president who doesn’t care about congress, like obummer?
I do support removing the 17th Amendment removing the selection of US Senators by state legislatures. The original Constitutional wording needs to return.
Yup - and I when I try to explain this to people, they just roll their eyes.
[I heard that at one time the voters didn’t elect them? Is that wrong/right/partially right?]
Correct. The state legislature appointed them to be their representative in Congress. With passage of the 17th Amendment, they became directly elected by the citizens and dead people of the state.
Repeal the 17th - AND expand the number of House seats dramatically to correlate with population growth.
Yup - made that argument to a group of guys recently who looked at me with faces of disbelief.
And, as a side benefit, you'd only have organized voter fraud in the relatively small number of competitive districts.
We essentially have two houses, both elected by the people. However, thinking that the state reps electing the Senate would work out better, HAHAHAHAH with all the RINOS?
Does anyone else find it amusing that the freepers who scream the loudest about how "WE ARE A REPUBLIC!!!" are the ones who would prefer us to have a UK-style European parliament? You know, the very system that gave us ZERO representation when were colonists and that we fought tooth and nail to get AWAY from?
You have it backwards. Due to the 17th, majority Dem states will occasionally elect a Republican Senator when the Democrat candidate has weak turnout in urban areas (for example, Illinois elected Peter Fitzgerald, New York elected Al D'Amato, etc.)
If you abolish the 17th amendment, a gerrymandered state legislature will ensure ONLY the urban areas have any input as to who becomes a U.S. Senator. The Illinois State Legislature districts have been drawn to ensure Chicago controls ALL the suburban areas and has a lopsided majority in both houses. Chicago Democrat Mike Madigan (Speaker of the Illinois House for 30+ years) would choose the Senator and his fellow Chicago Dems that control the chamber would then rubber stamp the choice. The other 101 counties would have ZERO input in the process.
I thought you said they were "statemen" back in 1912. Are you now conceding they were awful back then? Make up your mind.
>> The 17th improved nothing but only made things worse <<
Disagree entirely. Things got better numerous times after Senators were elected by popular vote. The U.S. Senate c. 1925 under President Coolidge was FAR better than the appointed one that existed back in 1912. Another excellent example was back in the 70s and 80s when Reagan Republicans defeated Dixiecrats in numerous southern states. That wouldn't have happened without the 17th. Man of those southern state legislatures were rigged to be Democrat majority, (regardless of what their citizens wanted) well into the 21st century.
While I would like to eventually see the 17th repealed, right now, you’d have party big shots picking subversives like Karl Rove and wealthy moderates like David Dewhurst (TX). Not to mention that since all legislative houses are now 1 man, 1 vote, you’d effectively have representatives from corrupt big cities picking a number of the Senators as well. The Senate would inevitably pursue a globalist agenda and be even more in thrall to strong, liberal Presidents like 0bama. The states would continue to ride in the back of the bus.
Repealing the 17th would have to be accompanied by a lot of other things for it to turn out well.
I wonder how much of that corruption had to do with an 1866 Federal law requiring an absolute majority of state representatives to support a U.S. Senate candidate before he could be appointed. If the Senator could be appointed by a plurality, there wouldn’t be as much of a perceived need to buy state legislators off, IMO.
See #114
Could be that the corruption also had something to do with Progressivism. Just a bunch of self-entitled liberal pricks who thought then knew what was best for us, and thus willing to do anything to get power over us.
At this moment I would rather face the dentist drill smell again, while listening to Fran Drescher sing folk songs, than get into it with some mouthbreather who thinks a small group of politicians electing superpowerful US Senators is a good idea.
A titantically stupid idea that goes very much against the Trump populist thing that’s in fashion right now. I’m sure Trump would be against having elections rigged by a small group of politicians.
Term limits. And if not that, at least reduce their terms to 4 years.
2 out of 3 ain't bad.
Yup, yup.
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.