Get rid of the 17th amendment
Beam Me Up Scotty
public support for repealing the 17th amendment to the US Constitution.
about 2 hours ago from web
# Dennis_normal dennisllynn Reading the 17th Amendment today...
http://bit.ly/2hJds7 In my opinion one of the worst changes to
government in our history. about 23 hours ago from TweetDeck
# Green_6329_biker_dude_normal Johnny_Helms Why the 17th Amendment
should be repealed: Opposing arguments can be easily found as well:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/ 1 day ago from web
# Default_profile_4_normal khanumsofia RT @tweetmeme Constitutional
Reforms and 17th Amendment - pakistani http://tinyurl.com/y9g99u2 2 days
ago from TweetMeme
# Rhp_facebook_1_normal LibertyThought The Revolution of 1913:
http://mises.org/media/4218 via @addthis - Tom DiLorenzo talking on
Federal Reserve, Income Tax, 17th Amendment 6 days ago from web
# 1776w-atcomwhit_normal LiberalCon @sonof_liberty II I know you've been
on it against the 17th Amendment; so you would rather have our Senators
appointed? 6 days ago from TweetDeck
# Dpathar_normal atharpk Nawaz to urge Gilani to act speedily on 17th
Amendment http://bit.ly/2oANRm 7 days ago from WP to Twitter
# Trav_normal sshb Wtf! What was the pourpose of the 17th amendment 7
days ago from txt
# Whtiger_normal Seriou Got some sleep, Totally ready 4 an ass kicking
#tcot RT @ErnieFowlke: @Seriou The 17th Amendment all but destroyed
Representative democracy 7 days ago from TweetDeck
# Image_normal justinrwright I dreamed about Kristen Stewart all. Night.
Long. Doug dreamed about his paper and the 17th amendment. 7 days ago
from Tweetie
# Dsci0189_normal Rosie21 Anyone wanna do my history coursework on the
17th amendment??? @jmlares? lol 8 days ago from TweetDeck
# Twitter_normal lindseyburke03 Scalia: 17th amendment most destructive
amendment ever passed. 8 days ago from mobile web
# Erodingmtnsmlwscrptr_normal profoundian @sonof_liberty Care to clarify
how 17th amendment weakens 10th? 8 days ago from web
# James_madison_normal Federalist84 @savethiscountry Tenth Amendment
really took a hit w/ passage of 17th. Repeal 17 and 10th will enjoy
comeback. (via @sonof_liberty ) 9 days ago from TweetDeck
# Sonof_liberty_normal sonof_liberty Tenth Amendment really took a hit
w/ passage of 17th. Repeal 17 and 10th will enjoy comeback.
@Federalist84 9 days ago from Power Twitter
Jerry Okamura
Senator?
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
message news:4B041701...@Talk-n-dog.com...
BDR529
Q
Jeff Strickland
having them appointed by the State Legislature.
Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you and I
were represented by people we did not vote for, they were appointed by
people that some of us had voted for once upon a time. It was found that the
State Legislature might have interests divergent from the will of the
people, and elected representatives are thought to serve us better than
appointed ones.
The 17th moves the selection of US Senators out from behind closed doors in
the halls of the State House and into the ballot box.
"BDR529" <el@wood> wrote in message
news:4b04412a$0$22936$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl...
Michael Coburn
As I said before, there is NO WAY to get the current Senate to do this
just as there was no way to get the the then current Senate to do
anything in 1911-12
http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/17th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#History -----
The Congress had resisted proposing the amendment and so the states
pushed to take action into their hands. Usually only the Congress
proposes amendments, but two thirds of the states can call for a new
constitutional convention to propose amendments (in either case,
ratification by three-fourths of the states is required for adoption). By
1910, 31 states (one short of the then-required number) had called for
such a convention, putting additional pressure on the Congress to propose
the amendment.[3]
Consequently, in 1911, Senator Joseph L. Bristow from Kansas offered a
resolution, proposing an amendment. The notion enjoyed strong support
from Senator William Borah of Idaho, himself a product of direct
election. Eight Southern Senators and all of the Republican Senators from
New England, New York and Pennsylvania opposed Bristow's resolution.
Nevertheless, the Senate approved the resolution largely because of the
Senators who had been elected by state-initiated reforms, many of whom
were serving their first terms, and therefore were more willing to
support direct election. After the Senate passed the amendment
resolution, the measure moved to the House of Representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, Coonskin cappers. Do yer thing! Assail your state legislatures and
force them to call for a convention on THIS particular amendment. That is
the _ONLY_ way you can make the current Congress do anything.
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
BDR529
> The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators instead of
> having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>
> Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you and I
> were represented by people we did not vote for, they were appointed by
> people that some of us had voted for once upon a time. It was found that the
> State Legislature might have interests divergent from the will of the
> people, and elected representatives are thought to serve us better than
> appointed ones.
>
> The 17th moves the selection of US Senators out from behind closed doors in
> the halls of the State House and into the ballot box.
Thanks!
Laws differ from nation to nation. All members of congress are in our
case elected, and the senators are indirectly elected through the
provincial elections. So, we don't have an amendment 17. Also, we don't
vote directly for the minister president.
Q
Beam Me Up Scotty
> The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators instead of
> having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>
> Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you and I
> were represented by people we did not vote for, they were appointed by
Which meant that they were *NOT* necessarily stampeded by public
opinion. They could do what is right and not what is popular.
We have the House of Rep. that will do what is popular.
--
Jeff Strickland
"Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators instead of
>> having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>>
>> Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you and
>> I
>> were represented by people we did not vote for, they were appointed by
>
>
> Which meant that they were *NOT* necessarily stampeded by public
> opinion. They could do what is right and not what is popular.
>
> We have the House of Rep. that will do what is popular.
>
>
But it also led to sometimes lengthy delays in getting the duly authorized
representation because of squabling and infighting within the State
Legislature. Some states went years without a US Senator to represent them
because the state legislatures could not overcome their own bickering and
appoint a Senator.
Personally, I don't really have a feel one way or the other about voting or
appointing a Senator. What I do not see though is that changing the
selection process will improve anything. Of the two methods, I suppose I
have to go with the popular vote of the electorate as opposed to a secret
selection in the halls of the State House.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:47:13 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> # controlussenate I am about to start down the long road toward gaining
>> public support for repealing the 17th amendment to the US Constitution.
>> about 2 hours ago from web
>
Are you looking for pointers?
Are the voices in your head that loud?
I can't give any first hand experience to you, but keep asking around,
I'm sure that you'll find some compatriots with similar problems that
have solved their issues.
Tin-foil fetishes are unusual from what I know but maybe you can try
plastic wrap.... it has some twists like Honey and other foods that
work with it. Good luck I'm rooting for you.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
> "Beam Me Up Scotty" <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote in
> message news:4b044f1d$0$18206$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
>> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>> The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators instead of
>>> having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>>>
>>> Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you and
>>> I
>>> were represented by people we did not vote for, they were appointed by
>>
>> Which meant that they were *NOT* necessarily stampeded by public
>> opinion. They could do what is right and not what is popular.
>>
>> We have the House of Rep. that will do what is popular.
>>
>>
>
> But it also led to sometimes lengthy delays in getting the duly authorized
> representation because of squabling and infighting within the State
> Legislature. Some states went years without a US Senator to represent them
> because the state legislatures could not overcome their own bickering and
> appoint a Senator.
That is an issue...
> Personally, I don't really have a feel one way or the other about voting or
> appointing a Senator. What I do not see though is that changing the
> selection process will improve anything. Of the two methods, I suppose I
> have to go with the popular vote of the electorate as opposed to a secret
> selection in the halls of the State House.
I don't say it will make life "Unicorns and Pixie dust..." but it may
stop some ridiculous populist legislation.
But we did get The Federal reserve and Income tax before the 17th so you
could be right.... I'm looking at it with interest.
--
Michael Coburn
> The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators instead
> of having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>
> Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you and
> I were represented by people we did not vote for, they were appointed by
> people that some of us had voted for once upon a time. It was found that
> the State Legislature might have interests divergent from the will of
> the people, and elected representatives are thought to serve us better
> than appointed ones.
>
> The 17th moves the selection of US Senators out from behind closed doors
> in the halls of the State House and into the ballot box.
Actually, what the 17th amendment has done is to offer up the voting
seats of the Senate on a silver platter to the national and multinational
corporations. It is not a theory that elections between the two primary
parties will go to the candidate spending the most on campaign
advertising and mostly on negative advertising. The money usually wins.
In less populated states like the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Main,
Delaware, etc. the amount of campaign funding from the actual people of
the state -- the populous -- is quite limited while the money from major
corporations, both national and multinational, is extreme. Max Baucus is
the poster child for this problem and so too the entire "gang of 6" that
attempted to destroy the health care reform bill.
It is interesting that many of the states chose to elect their senators
by state referendum prior to the enactment of the 17th amendment and did
so. Such a repeal would give the smaller states a means of self
protection from the multinationals and the nationals regarding the
representation of the people of the state in the US Senate. The people
could decide how they wanted to do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/17th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#History -----
Increasingly, Senators were elected based on state referenda, similar to
the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as 29 states elected
Senators either as nominees of party primaries, or in conjunction with a
general election. As representatives of a direct election process, the
new Senators supported measures that argued for new legislation, but in
order to achieve total election reform, a constitutional amendment was
required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Jeff Strickland
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:he1ke...@news5.newsguy.com...
Are the voters REALLY as stupid as you portray them to be?
Michael Coburn
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:56:14 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators instead
>>of having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>>
>>Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you and
>>I were represented by people we did not vote for, they were appointed by
>>people that some of us had voted for once upon a time. It was found that
>>the State Legislature might have interests divergent from the will of
>>the people, and elected representatives are thought to serve us better
>>than appointed ones.
>>
>>The 17th moves the selection of US Senators out from behind closed doors
>>in the halls of the State House and into the ballot box.
>
> Ya did good, Jeffy
Doing away with the 17th amendment returns control to the states as to
how the people select their representative in the national Senate. It
does not _FORCE_ the states to _DO_ANYTHING_. Why do _YOU_ think that
you should tell the Wyoming or California how they should choose their
representatives? The Constitution is absolutely clear on the fact that
members of the House of Representatives _MUST_ be directly elected and no
one is attempting to change that. The Supremes have further ruled that
the members of the House _MUST_ be elected from single member districts
and nobody is trying to change that.
Madison and others were against legislative appointment of the Senators
and there is much reason to be against it even now. But allowing the
people of the individual states to decide how they want to do it is a lot
better than forcing it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/17th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#History ------
After the turn of the century, support of Senatorial election reform grew
rapidly. William Randolph Hearst expanded his publishing empire with
Cosmopolitan, which became a respected general-interest magazine at that
time, and which championed the cause of direct election with muckraking
articles and strong advocacy of reform. Hearst hired a veteran reporter,
David Graham Phillips, who wrote scathing pieces on Senators, portraying
them as corrupt pawns of industrialists and financiers. The pieces became
a series titled "The Treason of the Senate," which appeared in several
monthly issues of the magazine in 1906.[2]
Increasingly, Senators were elected based on state referenda, similar to
the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as 29 states elected
Senators either as nominees of party primaries, or in conjunction with a
general election. As representatives of a direct election process, the
new Senators supported measures that argued for new legislation, but in
order to achieve total election reform, a constitutional amendment was
required.
The Congress had resisted proposing the amendment and so the states
pushed to take action into their hands. Usually only the Congress
proposes amendments, but two thirds of the states can call for a new
constitutional convention to propose amendments (in either case,
ratification by three-fourths of the states is required for adoption). By
1910, 31 states (one short of the then-required number) had called for
such a convention, putting additional pressure on the Congress to propose
the amendment.[3]
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Coburn
Max Baucus is the poster child for the way in which the lobby controls
who represents the underpopulated states. Max has enough paper campaign
money to burn a wet mule. And if Jesus was to run against him in
Montana, he'd still blanket the media enough to survive. He didn't get
that money from the people of Montana.
In mind of Madison the membership of Senate was to be population based as
in the House, but with much larger electoral districts.
http://www.greatervoice.org/econ/quotes/Madison.php ---------------
"Should Experience or public opinion require an equal and universal
suffrage for each branch of the Government such as prevails generally in
the U.S., (then) a resource favorable to the rights of landed and other
property, when its possessors become the Minority, may be found in the
enlargement of the Election Districts for ONE branch of the Legislature
and a prolongation of its period of service. Large districts are
manifestly favorable to the election of persons of general
respectability, and of probable attachment to the rights of property,
over competitors depending on the personal solicitations practicable on a
contracted theater."
-----------------------------------------------------------
HOWEVER:
In his "Virginia Plan" Madison was of the opinion that the Senators
should be NOMINATED by the state legislatures and actually confirmed/
elected to their seats by the full US House of Representatives.
This is my personal favorite!
Michael Coburn
Whoever runs the most ads gets elected. That's how it works in
GEOGRAPHICALLY LARGE electoral arenas. The retort of the moonbat is
"CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM". And the response of the Supremes is
"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Whatever you do we won't allow it.
I wonder if you even know who _your_ state level Senator is. How bout
your representative in your statehouse? Maybe it would help if these
people had a little more say in who is in Washington and you had to be
more careful about who YOU put in the state legislature. Or maybe you
would work a lot harder on doing something like IRV at the state level
and using _that_ to elect the Senator from your state. I think the point
is that the people of the state need to have more control over who their
senatorial representatives are. Direct, first past the post, elections
are not really all that marvelous in larger constituencies.
Jeff Strickland
Allowing or forcing what, the states themselves to decide if they should
appoint or elect the US Senators?
First, the original Constitution did not allow states to decide, it was
dictated that the states would appoint, the States ratified 17 so that the
voters could vote instead of the state appoint. Second, an electoral process
would (at least on the surface) allow the electorate select the Senators
from a field of interested candidates as opposed to the State Legislators
selecting the one that gave the largest bribe. Seems to me the second choice
is better one.
The force, as you call it, is that the states allow the voters to
participate in the selection process. I can't see any downside to the voters
having a role in the selection of their representatives, whether state or
federal. Especially when the state legislators fight and bicker for years
instead of filling an open US Senate seat.
Michael Coburn
Allowing them to select the Senators in an arm wrestling contest if they
want.
> First, the original Constitution did not allow states to decide, it was
> dictated that the states would appoint, the States ratified 17 so that
> the voters could vote instead of the state appoint.
No argument.
> Second, an electoral
> process would (at least on the surface) allow the electorate select the
> Senators from a field of interested candidates as opposed to the State
> Legislators selecting the one that gave the largest bribe. Seems to me
> the second choice is better one.
I know it _*SEEMS*_ that way. If it didn't seem that way then the 17th
amendment would not have happened. But the reality is that if the
bribery is kept within the states then it is more easily controlled by
the inhabitants of the state than the bribery that currently takes place.
It is much more likely that the voters of the state can manage their own
state legislators than they can manage the Washington lobby.
> The force, as you call it, is that the states allow the voters to
> participate in the selection process. I can't see any downside to the
> voters having a role in the selection of their representatives, whether
> state or federal. Especially when the state legislators fight and bicker
> for years instead of filling an open US Senate seat.
You are just being obstinate. But open the mind a little more and think
of what can be done within the confines of equal number of Senators per
state. The best solution is proportional representation in both houses.
But equal state representation is absolutely WELDED into the constitution
and it can't be changed but by unanimous consent of all the state
legislatures. The only _FIX_ by constitutional amendment is to change
the way in which the Senators are selected. Until you do then the
multinational corporations will continue to fill their shopping bags with
senators from sparsely populated states. And the people of those states
don't like that any more than I do.
Michael Coburn
> On 18 Nov 2009 22:20:02 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> Are the voters REALLY as stupid as you portray them to be?
>>
>>Whoever runs the most ads gets elected
>
> TIn hat crap
>
> True, some get elected, and some lose outspending 2-3 times as much
Show me...
Michael Coburn
> On 18 Nov 2009 20:11:55 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>> The 17th moves the selection of US Senators out from behind closed
>>> doors in the halls of the State House and into the ballot box.
>>
>>Actually, what the 17th amendment has done is to offer up the voting
>>seats of the Senate on a silver platter to the national and
>>multinational corporations.
>
> oh bullshit
>
> That's the tin-hat whine and cry
I have NEVER been called a "tin hat" in all the years I have posted on
Usenet. I guess there's a first time for everything.
> If the political party, passed legislation that funnels money back to
> the people via programs, infrastructure, schools, education yadda,
> yadda---then whatever the "corporations bought" isn't a factor that's
> bad
Why would you think that legislation that funnels money as you want would
be an objective of national and multinational corporations?
> What IS bad is those corporations influencing elections that help elect
> people like Paul, Grams, Gingrich, Delay, reagan ---the typical sleazy
> assholes that favor the elite.
So what's yer point? Mine is that this corporate influence is MORE
likely in state wide elections than it is in indirect elections.
Michael Coburn
> On 18 Nov 2009 21:35:57 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Doing away with the 17th amendment returns control to the states as to
>>how the people select their representative in the national Senate
>
> Neut Gingrich wants more "state control" too---said so in his GOPAC
> lectures
>
> Why?
>
> As he says: 'It's easier and cheaper to control at a grass roots level
> than at a national level where the entire nation's interests are at
> stake"
>
> If you think I want states to be controlled by the likes of Grams,
> Gingrich, Delay, or the dozens of other rightwing criminals, sleazes and
> the
> corporate/individual wealth they represent--you need a tea-bag change.
I think it quite amazing that you believe that state wide elections
costing 12-20 million bucks will magically stop the control of these
criminals.
Michael Coburn
> On 18 Nov 2009 21:51:24 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Max Baucus is the poster child for the way in which the lobby controls
>>who represents the underpopulated states. Max has enough paper campaign
>>money to burn a wet mule.
>
> Your solution would be to make every rural state an impoverished begging
> entity?
Why do you say that??? It makes no sense. If the people of the state
TRULY control who is the Senator from their state, how does that "make
every rural state and impoverished begging entity"? My point is that
they do not currently have such control. It is an illusion in that
whoever has the most money wins, and the money comes from the Washington
DC lobby.
Michael Coburn
> On 19 Nov 2009 01:14:52 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>The only _FIX_ by constitutional amendment is to change the way in which
>>the Senators are selected. Until you do then the multinational
>>corporations will continue to fill their shopping bags with senators
>>from sparsely populated states
>
> Exactly the argument Gingrich made because he knew that the money from
> "rich" states could better be used to consolidate GOP political
> power--and that co-equal small states could counter their power.
>
> That alone makes it suspect
Let's make sure that we both understand this. I will admit to not
looking at the other side of the money flow through the parties. I think
you are saying that the California Republicans (there are a lot more
Republicans in California than there are PEOPLE in Wyoming) could take up
a collection and send it to Wyoming AND Montana and manage to buy two
senators (Wyoming and Montana) instead of one California senator.
But maybe that isn't what you are saying.
Dänk 1010011010
> The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators instead of
> having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>
> Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you and I
> were represented by people we did not vote for, they were appointed by
> people that some of us had voted for once upon a time. It was found that the
> State Legislature might have interests divergent from the will of the
> people, and elected representatives are thought to serve us better than
> appointed ones.
>
> the halls of the State House and into the ballot box.
What the 17th Amendment did was remove the States from the federal
legislative process. The Framers already gave the people a voice, in
the directly-elected House of Representatives. The Senate was
designed as a counter to populism, representing the interests of each
state by letting the respective legislatures choose their senators.
There is no reason to have two directly-elected chambers of Congress,
and the result was to make state governments irrelevant, causing
almost all Americans to completely ignore state politics in favor of
federal. Today the states are almost powerless, having been turned
into little more than federal administrative provinces instead of the
sovereign entities the Framers intended.
Strabo
> The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators instead of
> having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>
> Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you and I
> were represented by people we did not vote for, they were appointed by
> people that some of us had voted for once upon a time.
>
The citizens of each state already had a representative. He's called a
'Representative.' He is the direct link between the people and the
federal Congress.
In addition, each State legislature is supposed to be represented
in Congress by a Senator. Senators were intended to directly represent
the interests of the citizen's State and indirectly, the citizen
himself.
This is the State balance of powers intended by the Framers but
which was eliminated by the 17th A. When a Senator did not reflect
the intentions of the State legislature he could be recalled by
the legislature and replaced. This was an effective deterent to
federal power.
It was this power balance that prevented the adoption of a central bank
and the usurping of Constitutional guarantees. This changed in 1913
with the extraordinary adoption of the Income Tax Act, Federal Reserve
Act and the 17th A. Coincidence? No. Planned.
The result of the 17th A. is the appearance of greater democratic
participation when in actuality it is less. As the power of federal
influence increased, Senators and Representatives became creatures
of corporate and foreign interests. Incumbents are very difficult
to remove from office and in some cases remaining in office for decades.
This has created an arrogant and aloof aristocracy which operates
for personal gain and apart from the interests of the Union.
This would change overnight if the 17th A. was revoked.
>
> It was found that the
> State Legislature might have interests divergent from the will of the
> people, and elected representatives are thought to serve us better than
> appointed ones.
>
In the 1780s it was presumed that the people should NOT use government
for personal or collective gain. The people have unalienable rights to
pursue happiness in other ways.
Each State is a representative Republic. As such, legislatures may well
act against populist zeal. This is another example of power balancing.
>
> The 17th moves the selection of US Senators out from behind closed doors in
> the halls of the State House and into the ballot box.
>
Each State legislatures is supposed to be open to the public. If it is
not it is up to the people to correct their servants.
If you can't make your state government run correctly you damn sure
can't restrain the federal government.
Strabo
> On 18 Nov 2009 21:35:57 GMT, Michael Coburn
> <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Doing away with the 17th amendment returns control to the states as to
>
> Neut Gingrich wants more "state control" too---said so
> in his GOPAC lectures
>
> Why?
>
> As he says: 'It's easier and cheaper to control at a
> grass roots level than at a national level where the
> entire nation's interests are at stake"
>
> If you think I want states to be controlled by the
> likes of Grams, Gingrich, Delay, or the dozens of other
> rightwing criminals, sleazes and the
> corporate/individual wealth they represent--you need a
> tea-bag change.
>
Question: Who or what do you suppose controls Feinstein, Pelosi,
Boxer and Hartman?
Answer: The same interests that control Republicans.
Note that each was born and raised in the Northeast and now represents
California.
Each came from poor to moderate means and is now a multi-millionaire.
Each one is married to billionaire husbands with global financial
and political interests.
Is this typical of American politicians?
California is shot, broke, untenable. Can't even get a bond
rating. A third of southern California is now illegal alien
country with gang rule. Hospitals have shut down, schools are in
jeopardy. IS this due to "rightwing criminals?" Guess who is
really responsible.
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:41:14 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>> Which meant that they were *NOT* necessarily stampeded by public
>> opinion. They could do what is right and not what is popular.
>
>
>
> the House is SUPPOSED to be the "volatile" branch
that is why the 17th being repealed would be setting us on that path
once more.
--
Beam Me Up Scotty
> fe...@Vester.net wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2009 21:35:57 GMT, Michael Coburn
>> <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Doing away with the 17th amendment returns control to the states as
>>> to how the people select their representative in the national Senate
>>
>> Neut Gingrich wants more "state control" too---said so
>> in his GOPAC lectures
>>
Gingrich is CFR...
He took Hilary Clinton's view of our southern border... That all the
problems are our fault for buying drugs. Truth is it's the ruling
elites(CFR's) fault for making drugs illegal and creating an
uncontrolled market for them.
By trying to control people rather than simply allowing them to live, by
making Social Taboos into social engineering crimes with endless
government penalties the elites have created another prohibition type
criminal explosion. By choosing Fascism over freedom it is the ruling
elites that created more problems than they solve.
>> Why?
>>
>> As he says: 'It's easier and cheaper to control at a
>> grass roots level than at a national level where the
>> entire nation's interests are at stake"
>>
>> If you think I want states to be controlled by the
>> likes of Grams, Gingrich, Delay, or the dozens of other
>> rightwing criminals, sleazes and the
>> corporate/individual wealth they represent--you need a
>> tea-bag change.
>>
>
> Question: Who or what do you suppose controls Feinstein, Pelosi,
> Boxer and Hartman?
>
CFR *Council on Foreign Relations* http://www.cfr.org/
"In August 2009, the Obama Administration urged cooperation with UN to
tackle the same points covered by CFR plan's. "The Obama administration
will work with the United Nations to fight terrorism and other major
world challenges...like nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, the
global financial crisis, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, pandemics and
global warming."[17"
> Answer: The same interests that control Republicans.
CFR
> Note that each was born and raised in the Northeast and now represents
> California.
Progressives.
> Each came from poor to moderate means and is now a multi-millionaire.
>
> Each one is married to billionaire husbands with global financial
> and political interests.
>
> Is this typical of American politicians?
>
> California is shot, broke, untenable. Can't even get a bond
> rating. A third of southern California is now illegal alien
> country with gang rule. Hospitals have shut down, schools are in
> jeopardy. IS this due to "rightwing criminals?" Guess who is
> really responsible.
>
--
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:31:02 -0700, feble wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:56:14 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
>
> >>The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators instead
> >>of having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>
> >>Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you and
> >>I were represented by people we did not vote for, they were appointed by
> >>the State Legislature might have interests divergent from the will of
> >>the people, and elected representatives are thought to serve us better
> >>than appointed ones.
>
> >>in the halls of the State House and into the ballot box.
>
>
> Doing away with the 17th amendment returns control to the states as to
> does not _FORCE_ the states to _DO_ANYTHING_. Why do _YOU_ think that
> you should tell the Wyoming or California how they should choose their
> representatives?
Because the constitution the citizens the right to vote. (24th
amendment)
>The Constitution is absolutely clear on the fact that
> members of the House of Representatives _MUST_ be directly elected and no
> one is attempting to change that. The Supremes have further ruled that
> the members of the House _MUST_ be elected from single member districts
> and nobody is trying to change that.
>
> Madison and others were against legislative appointment of the Senators
> and there is much reason to be against it even now. But allowing the
> people of the individual states to decide how they want to do it is a lot
> better than forcing it:
So let the states decide whether to let blacks vote?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/
> wiki/17th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#History ------
>
> After the turn of the century, support of Senatorial election reform grew
> rapidly. William Randolph Hearst expanded his publishing empire with
> Cosmopolitan, which became a respected general-interest magazine at that
> time, and which championed the cause of direct election with muckraking
> articles and strong advocacy of reform. Hearst hired a veteran reporter,
> David Graham Phillips, who wrote scathing pieces on Senators, portraying
> them as corrupt pawns of industrialists and financiers. The pieces became
> a series titled "The Treason of the Senate," which appeared in several
> monthly issues of the magazine in 1906.[2]
>
> Increasingly, Senators were elected based on state referenda, similar to
> the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as 29 states elected
> Senators either as nominees of party primaries, or in conjunction with a
> general election. As representatives of a direct election process, the
> new Senators supported measures that argued for new legislation, but in
> order to achieve total election reform, a constitutional amendment was
> required.
>
> The Congress had resisted proposing the amendment and so the states
> pushed to take action into their hands. Usually only the Congress
> proposes amendments, but two thirds of the states can call for a new
> constitutional convention to propose amendments (in either case,
> ratification by three-fourths of the states is required for adoption). By
> 1910, 31 states (one short of the then-required number) had called for
> such a convention, putting additional pressure on the Congress to propose
> the amendment.[3]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
erschro...@gmail.com
Why? The represent small districts, with narrow and parochial
interests. A majority of them does not necessarily indicate the will
of the majority of the people in a state.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Nov 18, 11:56 am, "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators instead of
> > having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>
> > Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you and I
> > were represented by people we did not vote for, they were appointed by
> > people that some of us had voted for once upon a time. It was found that the
> > State Legislature might have interests divergent from the will of the
> > people, and elected representatives are thought to serve us better than
> > appointed ones.
>
> > The 17th moves the selection of US Senators out from behind closed doors in
> > the halls of the State House and into the ballot box.
>
> What the 17th Amendment did was remove the States from the federal
> legislative process. The Framers already gave the people a voice, in
> the directly-elected House of Representatives. The Senate was
> designed as a counter to populism, representing the interests of each
> state by letting the respective legislatures choose their senators.
>
> There is no reason to have two directly-elected chambers of Congress,
Sure there is. The interests of states is different from the
interests of smaller congressional districts, which now are often very
homogenous in terms or race, income, etc.
> and the result was to make state governments irrelevant, causing
> almost all Americans to completely ignore state politics in favor of
> federal.
Things like segregation and civil rights pointed out the folly of
lettinbg state politics run things.
>Today the states are almost powerless, having been turned
> into little more than federal administrative provinces instead of the
> sovereign entities the Framers intended.
Uh, supremacy clause?
Poetic Justice
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:48:33 -0700, feble wrote:
>
>> On 18 Nov 2009 22:20:02 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Are the voters REALLY as stupid as you portray them to be?
>>> Whoever runs the most ads gets elected
>> TIn hat crap
>>
>> True, some get elected, and some lose outspending 2-3 times as much
>
> Show me...
>
>
>
--
Jerry Okamura
<fe...@Vester.net> wrote in message
news:api8g5h0rr6nbljlp...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 07:53:31 -1000, "Jerry Okamura"
> <okamu...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Only to be replaced by someone with the same mindset at the previous
>>Senator?
>
> We need you to have more senators with a mind set like
> ronPauloon.
>
> We'd be assured of a century of dominance.
>
No, we would be assuered of having a whole lot more freedom, not fewer
freedoms, which is the direction we are headed.
Michael Coburn
> On Nov 18, 4:35 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:31:02 -0700, feble wrote:
>> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:56:14 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
>> > <crwlrj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators
>> >>instead of having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>>
>> >>Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment -- you
>> >>and I were represented by people we did not vote for, they were
>> >>appointed by people that some of us had voted for once upon a time.
>> >>It was found that the State Legislature might have interests
>> >>divergent from the will of the people, and elected representatives
>> >>are thought to serve us better than appointed ones.
>>
>> >>The 17th moves the selection of US Senators out from behind closed
>> >>doors in the halls of the State House and into the ballot box.
>>
>> > Ya did good, Jeffy
>>
>> Doing away with the 17th amendment returns control to the states as to
>> how the people select their representative in the national Senate. It
>> does not _FORCE_ the states to _DO_ANYTHING_. Why do _YOU_ think that
>> you should tell the Wyoming or California how they should choose their
>> representatives?
>
> Because the constitution the citizens the right to vote. (24th
> amendment)
The 24th says NO POOL TAX, fool.
>>The Constitution is absolutely clear on the fact that
>> members of the House of Representatives _MUST_ be directly elected and
>> no one is attempting to change that. The Supremes have further ruled
>> that the members of the House _MUST_ be elected from single member
>> districts and nobody is trying to change that.
>>
>> Madison and others were against legislative appointment of the Senators
>> and there is much reason to be against it even now. But allowing the
>> people of the individual states to decide how they want to do it is a
>> lot better than forcing it:
>
> So let the states decide whether to let blacks vote?
That's covered in the 14th amendment and in many court rulings of the
60's and again has not a damned thing to do with electing/appointing the
senators.
Michael Coburn
If it is not possible for the state legislature to provide a vehicle for
the voices of the common people of the state in regard to the national
assemblies then the state legislatures will obviously not do so. It is a
matter of design and a matter of participation. Given that the state
legislatures will, in fact, appoint or at least recommend candidates for
the Senate then the people _WILL_ have such an interest.
Michael Coburn
> Gingrich made the case: (GOPAC shown on C-SPAN)---that: (paraphrased)
> "...the national electorate is too "liberal" for us, and therefore we
> must concentrate on a message that convinces people to starve the
> federal government (funds). States are more easily controlled because
> it costs less to elect"
>
> The gist of the argument is that: (for example) Ohio has roughly 7
> million people--while Wyoming has roughly 800,000 thousand. Yet WY has
> the same political power in washington as Ohio.
>
> Gingrich believed that if Ohio got to "keep more of it's money"---and
> use it internally, that the power of WY would be lessened (in congress)
> and allow GOP policies more easily instituted.
>
> During these lectures, Neut wrote on a chalk board the famous rhetorical
> mantra "who is better able to spend your money--you or the government"
> and told them to say it as often as they could
>
> Your whine about "shopping bags" simply dismisses the idea of federalism
> that is policy from a national perspective.
>
> The money collected in taxes, instead of staying in individuals hands
> where self-serving considerations disallow it to work for the nation--is
> allocated by a national policy
>
> Too bad that it's "liberal" when it comes to education, infrastructure
> etc. A national congress, flawed as it is, still is better than the
> bullshit of states.
You truly are a hopeless moonbat.
Michael Coburn
It would not change things overnight. And it would not limit the power
of the federal government unless the federal government was acting in a
way contrary to the wishes of the people. Yet it _WOULD_ serve to limit
the power of large national and multinational corporations AS WELL AS
NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTIES.
> > It was found that the
>> State Legislature might have interests divergent from the will of the
>> people, and elected representatives are thought to serve us better than
>> appointed ones.
>>
>>
> In the 1780s it was presumed that the people should NOT use government
> for personal or collective gain. The people have unalienable rights to
> pursue happiness in other ways.
>
> Each State is a representative Republic. As such, legislatures may well
> act against populist zeal. This is another example of power balancing.
>
>> The 17th moves the selection of US Senators out from behind closed
>> doors in the halls of the State House and into the ballot box.
>>
>>
> Each State legislatures is supposed to be open to the public. If it is
> not it is up to the people to correct their servants.
Sing it, pal!!!
> If you can't make your state government run correctly you damn sure
> can't restrain the federal government.
100% agree.
--
Michael Coburn
> On 19 Nov 2009 03:35:11 GMT, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Your solution would be to make every rural state an impoverished
>>> begging entity?
>>
>>Why do you say that???
>
> Because taxing and redistribution from nationa congress is fought by
> loonytarians and conservatives.
>
>> If the people of the state
>>TRULY control who is the Senator from their state, how does that "make
>>every rural state and impoverished begging entity"? My point is that
>>they do not currently have such control.
>
> Sorry, but your BELIEF is that they do not
>
> That's the problem here.
>
> The problem for conservatives and loonytarians---is that (regardless of
> who funds them)---they don't have the general public's interests, they
> represent corporate and personal greed
>
> The "other side of the coin"---(regardless of who funds them)---is that
> "liberal/progressives" policies are historically geared to policies that
> help a greater spectrum of people. That's what you call "pork"
>
> It's only pork if you don't get it.
We are done. I am a liberal and have been for the last 30 years. You,
OTOH, are a moonbat who Bleeeeeeves yourself to be a "progressive". Just
a brainless left winger suffering from an estrogen overdose.
erschro...@gmail.com
No, it was an example of what happens when you "let the states
decide."
Strabo
The States don't decide. States have constitutions and each one
has the BOR. The States *did not* establish slavery and neither
did the colonies. Instead it was in British law. It was *the law*
that allowed men to be recognized as property.
This followed the colonists to America and was a major problem in
ratifying the Declaration in 1776. Otherwise slavery could never have
become a commercial enterprise. Blame the lawyers, the Founders
did. In fact the first 13th amendment forbade attorneys from holding
office.
Well, that part of the law changed and is now in step with the
Constitution.
Anyway, you have no choice. The States must now step in and salvage the
Constitutional government. If they don't the Trotskites in Congress
plan to crash the economy and sell you to the coming Global Plantation.
It's up to you to make sure your State takes the straight and narrow.
<snipped>
Strabo
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:30:57 -0500, Beam Me Up Scotty
> <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>>> the House is SUPPOSED to be the "volatile" branch
>> that is why the 17th being repealed would be setting us on that path
>> once more.
>
> it.
>
Well, it's either repeal the 17th and let the States reach into
the Congress and balance the power OR we'll have to go up there and
drag 'em out and hang 'em.
Now, which would you rather do?
Strabo
OK, not overnight but surely the next day.
Given the proper incentive most senators would receive a call
one morning to prepare to turn over their offices to replacements
due to arrive the next day.
BAM! BAM! BAM! BAM! The Senate in overdrive! Open the doors and
run out the whores, toys and little boys, a new day dawns!
There's committees to undo, amendments to repeal, laws to rewrite,
STAFF TO FIRE, lobbyists to hang, executive orders to nullify.
But how will all this come about?
The State legislatures will pressure the House to act now, in concert
with the Senate, or the States will call an Article V convention.
Bingo!
And send the Sargent-At-Arms to arrest the president and the cabinet
and every czar found scurrying about the grounds.
Why we could even make arrangements for the sacred SCOTUS to encamp
with the Congress and do the job they're supposed to do.
Within a few months we'll have cut the government by 90%.
Think big my man.
<snipped>
Jeff Strickland
The issue of the 17th Amendment is the selection process for US Senators,
not state senators.
Each state gets two US Senators. Before 17, those senators were selected by
the state legislators. The problem created by that method was that the
state's internal politics sometimes left a state without proper
representation in the US Senate -- in theory, a state might not have any US
Senators, but in practice several states had only one US Senator.
The number of Senators in the US Senate affects the rest of the country
because the Senate votes would be out of balance, so laws passed in the
Senate would be impacted if any given state, or several states, were short a
senator or two.
17 simply says that the voters of the state shall select the US Senators
from that state instead of the state legislature making the selection.
State Senators are another matter entirely. My state has two houses, the
State Assembly and the State Senate. These guys can't get anything done on
time or within budget, they would deadlock for years if they were in charge
of selecting the US Senate representation for our state.
Michael Coburn
I am not on the right of the political spectrum. And I do not normally
agree with the people who are. But in this particular case I see the
benefits of EMPOWERING the actual PEOPLE of the individual states. There
is sufficient protection from abuse in the "insure a republican form of
government", the bill of rights, and the 14th amendment and other clauses
of the Constitution to prevent state based injustice on the people. We
do not need Senators elected by the lobby and that is EXACTLY what we
currently have.
Michael Coburn
> "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:he5pu...@news5.newsguy.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:18:09 -0800, erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 18, 5:20Â pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:22:46 -0800, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>> > "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>>>> >news:he1ke...@news5.newsguy.com...
>>>> >> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:56:14 -0800, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>> The 17th Amendment says you and I get to vote for our Senators
>>>> >>> instead of having them appointed by the State Legislature.
>>>>
>>>> >>> Before 17 was passed, the US Senate was filled by appointment --
>>>> >>> you and I were represented by people we did not vote for, they
>>>> >>> were appointed by people that some of us had voted for once upon
>>>> >>> a time. It was found that the State Legislature might have
>>>> >>> interests divergent from the will of the people, and elected
>>>> >>> representatives are thought to serve us better than appointed
>>>> >>> ones.
>>>>
>>>> >>> The 17th moves the selection of US Senators out from behind
>>>> >>> closed doors in the halls of the State House and into the ballot
>>>> >>> box.
>>>>
>>>> >> Actually, what the 17th amendment has done is to offer up the
>>>> >> voting seats of the Senate on a silver platter to the national and
>>>> >> multinational corporations. Â It is not a theory that elections
>>>> >> between the two primary parties will go to the candidate spending
>>>> >> the most on campaign advertising and mostly on negative
>>>> >> advertising. Â The money usually wins. In less populated states
>>>> >> like the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, Main, Delaware, etc. the
>>>> >> amount of campaign funding from the actual people of the state --
>>>> >> the populous -- is quite limited while the money from major
>>>> >> corporations, both national and multinational, is extreme. Â Max
>>>> >> Baucus is the poster child for this problem and so too the entire
>>>> >> "gang of 6" that attempted to destroy the health care reform bill.
>>>>
>>>> >> It is interesting that many of the states chose to elect their
>>>> >> senators by state referendum prior to the enactment of the 17th
>>>> >> amendment and did so. Â Such a repeal would give the smaller
>>>> >> states a means of self protection from the multinationals and the
>>>> >> nationals regarding the representation of the people of the state
>>>> >> in the US Senate. Â The people could decide how they wanted to do
>>>> >> it.
>>>>
>>>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/
>>>> >> wiki/17th_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#History Â
>>>> >> -----
>>>>
>>>> >> Increasingly, Senators were elected based on state referenda,
>>>> >> similar to the means developed by Oregon. By 1912, as many as 29
>>>> >> states elected Senators either as nominees of party primaries, or
>>>> >> in conjunction with a general election. As representatives of a
>>>> >> direct election process, the new Senators supported measures that
>>>> >> argued for new legislation, but in order to achieve total election
>>>> >> reform, a constitutional amendment was required.
>>>>
>>>> > Are the voters REALLY as stupid as you portray them to be?
>>>>
>>>> Whoever runs the most ads gets elected. Â That's how it works in
>>>> GEOGRAPHICALLY LARGE electoral arenas. Â The retort of the moonbat is
>>>> "CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM". Â And the response of the Supremes is
>>>> "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Â Whatever you do we won't allow it.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if you even know who _your_ state level Senator is. Â How
>>>> bout your representative in your statehouse? Maybe it would help if
>>>> these people had a little more say in who is in Washington and you
>>>> had to be more careful about who YOU put in the state legislature.
>>>
>>> Why? The represent small districts, with narrow and parochial
>>> interests. A majority of them does not necessarily indicate the will
>>> of the majority of the people in a state.
>>
>> If it is not possible for the state legislature to provide a vehicle
>> for the voices of the common people of the state in regard to the
>> national assemblies then the state legislatures will obviously not do
>> so. It is a matter of design and a matter of participation. Given
>> that the state legislatures will, in fact, appoint or at least
>> recommend candidates for the Senate then the people _WILL_ have such an
>> interest.
>>
>>
> The issue of the 17th Amendment is the selection process for US
> Senators, not state senators.
NO SHIT!!!
What a self indulgent ass.
> Each state gets two US Senators. Before 17, those senators were selected
> by the state legislators. The problem created by that method was that
> the state's internal politics sometimes left a state without proper
> representation in the US Senate -- in theory, a state might not have any
> US Senators, but in practice several states had only one US Senator.
The people of the state need to take responsibility and start throwing
people out of the state legislature for failure to do their job. There
are adequate state based solutions to this ridiculous problem on which
you want to "pick a nit".
> The number of Senators in the US Senate affects the rest of the country
> because the Senate votes would be out of balance, so laws passed in the
> Senate would be impacted if any given state, or several states, were
> short a senator or two.
This is a retreat into donkey versus elephant bullshit. I cannot deny
the existence of this reality and the fact that Senators often represent
an ideology as opposed to the interests of a state. That is a result of
"party manipulation". But it is actually irrelevant in this particular
case. Texas and Wyoming have red senators and California and Washington
have blue Senators. In most cases the Senators are the color of the
state legislatures anyway.
In this day and time there is no way in hell a state legislature would be
tolerated by the people of the state if that legislature failed to
provide US senatorial representation for the people of the state. The
notion is idiotic. If the Democrats are failing to place people into the
Senate that are actual Democrats, as in the case of Max Baucus, then what
good is it? There is NO WAY that Max Baucus represents anything other
than the Medical lobby.
> 17 simply says that the voters of the state shall select the US Senators
> from that state instead of the state legislature making the selection.
I am well aware of that, Mr. PissBody, and I am sure that the other
people are too.
> State Senators are another matter entirely.
NO SHIT!!!
> My state has two houses, the
> State Assembly and the State Senate. These guys can't get anything done
> on time or within budget, they would deadlock for years if they were in
> charge of selecting the US Senate representation for our state.
Then why do you elect them and pay them????? You can't seem to handle
your own state legislature and yet you want to screw with the national
legislature that messes with _ME_. Typical left wing moonbat. Reeeeely
dumb. The rightarded are the stupidest humans known to man. But the far
left moonbats are close contenders; constant visions of grandeur based on
an innate sense of superior knowledge that simply doesn't exist.
I actually get stuff wrong a lot. But I make a lot more decisions and
take a lot more positions than most. I admit I am wrong when shown that
I am, and best of all, when that happens, I get to learn something.
Maybe you should try it.
Michael Coburn
(snicker)
You are scaring the kids. The moonbats are aroused and will fight it
tooth and nail. Not because of the lobby being displaced, but because of
the blind hatred you and other righties have engendered. All that crap
about removing the "czars" and such is, of course, totally
unconstitutional and would not be tolerated by the Commander in Chief or
the military he commands. Further, the change in the process should not
take place until the next election cycle.
My actual favorite method for ensconcing Senators is the method suggested
in Madison's "Virginia Plan" where the state legislators recommended a
slate of candidates and the House of Representatives then elected them to
office.
Jeff Strickland
Sorry if I came off poorly. I can't tell if somebody is discussing US
Senators or State Senators.
>> Each state gets two US Senators. Before 17, those senators were selected
>> by the state legislators. The problem created by that method was that
>> the state's internal politics sometimes left a state without proper
>> representation in the US Senate -- in theory, a state might not have any
>> US Senators, but in practice several states had only one US Senator.
>
> The people of the state need to take responsibility and start throwing
> people out of the state legislature for failure to do their job. There
> are adequate state based solutions to this ridiculous problem on which
> you want to "pick a nit".
>
That did not work, which is why the 17th came about.
Say what?! If ever there was a right wing dingbat, it would be me.
I like 17, it gives me power to elect a US Senator that will view me as a
constituant instead of somebody he has to deal with that he'd rather not.
When my US Senator is appointed by my state legislature, then my senator is
prone to not represent me. I'd much rather have a guy that I elected than
have an empty seat at the table, or a seat filled that has no connection to
me.
Obviously the people I voted for in my state government are not elected
because the Democrats rule the state.
Strabo
> "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:he6oa...@news4.newsguy.com...
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:31:40 -0800, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if you even know who _your_ state level Senator is. Â How
The tension of dissatisfaction must grow within a State in order to
motivate its citizens and it will when left alone. The 17th A.
preempted this process as those in both parties saw an opportunity to
expand federal power. That this occurred in 1913 was not a coincidence.
After all there are those who abhor the existent of the States.
>
>
>>> The number of Senators in the US Senate affects the rest of the country
>>> because the Senate votes would be out of balance, so laws passed in the
>>> Senate would be impacted if any given state, or several states, were
>>> short a senator or two.
>> This is a retreat into donkey versus elephant bullshit. I cannot deny
>> the existence of this reality and the fact that Senators often represent
>> an ideology as opposed to the interests of a state. That is a result of
>> "party manipulation". But it is actually irrelevant in this particular
>> case. Texas and Wyoming have red senators and California and Washington
>> have blue Senators. In most cases the Senators are the color of the
>> state legislatures anyway.
>>
<snipped>
>>
>>> My state has two houses, the
>>> State Assembly and the State Senate. These guys can't get anything done
>>> on time or within budget, they would deadlock for years if they were in
>>> charge of selecting the US Senate representation for our state.
>> Then why do you elect them and pay them????? You can't seem to handle
>> your own state legislature and yet you want to screw with the national
>> legislature that messes with _ME_. Typical left wing moonbat.
>
> Say what?! If ever there was a right wing dingbat, it would be me.
>
> I like 17, it gives me power to elect a US Senator that will view me as a
> constituant instead of somebody he has to deal with that he'd rather not.
> When my US Senator is appointed by my state legislature, then my senator is
> prone to not represent me. I'd much rather have a guy that I elected than
> have an empty seat at the table, or a seat filled that has no connection to
> me.
>
That's why you also elect *Representatives*.
He's not *your* Senator. He is (supposed to be) the legislature's
representative.
Michael Coburn
It didn't work in 1910. It would work very well in today's technological
environment.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
> When my US Senator is appointed by my state legislature, then my
> senator is prone to not represent me. I'd much rather have a guy that I
> elected than have an empty seat at the table, or a seat filled that has
> no connection to me.
>
> Obviously the people I voted for in my state government are not elected
> because the Democrats rule the state.
If the Democrats rule the state then why wouldn't your Senator be a
Democrat regardless of your particular vote for national Senator??? It
seems that you are looking to disenfranchise the other people in your
state who put Democrats onto the state legislature.
I would say the same thing about Republican legislatures. If the people
of the state elect Republicans to the state legislature then they should
expect to get a Republican senator. The direct vote isn't going to make
any difference as far as party alignment unless the campaign is overrun
with big money from outside the state. If you WANT a Republican as your
Senator you should be out there working to elect state legislators that
are Republican.
Strabo
I think you have much more to fear from national injustice than
"state based injustice." Keep in mind that you've lived through
a relatively peaceful period. The national government can wreak
much more havoc than can a state.
If I may, one tedious aside: One *cannot* empower others. One can
educate, one can encourage, but one cannot act by proxy. I mention
this because the term 'empower' was launched as a propaganda tool
and has no application outside that realm.
That said, the People have various powers within and through their
respective States. One is the power to elect certain local and State
officials. This has the most influence on their opportunities and
well-being. The People also have the power to vote for a federal
Representative and they have the power of the jury system.
As an indirect consequence of its selection, their State legislature
is supposed to be able to *reflect the will of the commonweal* by
selecting federal Senators. So, the People choose one type and the
legislature chooses another. Together these Representatives and
Senators, chosen in different ways for common purpose, interact on the
national stage. This balance of powers maximizes the potential of the
Republic.
However, if the People select both types through popular elections then
the good that can be had from legislative selection is lost. The People
will most always vote for bread and butter issues and be prone to
feel-good promises. The legislatures on the other hand, comprised
of Democrats and Republicans, will select on the basis of other
issues and be hard-nosed.
Secondly, in the original frame of the Constitution, a legislature
can *recall* a Senator and replace him quickly and at any time should
he not have the State's interests, your interests, at heart. The People
can also recall an official but this method is difficult and takes time.
Michael Coburn
I can't seem to find this "recall" provision in my copy of the
Constitution.
> The People can
> also recall an official but this method is difficult and takes time.
That also seems to elude me.
Jeff Strickland
"Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
news:ZKLNm.54299$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
>>
>
> That's why you also elect *Representatives*.
>
> He's not *your* Senator. He is (supposed to be) the legislature's
> representative.
>
>
There's finally an argument that makes sense. I do not agree with the
premise, but now I understand where the movement ot dump 17 is coming from.
The US Senate is not a tool of the state senators, it is a tool of the
people. US Senators ought to represent the people of the state, not the
legislature of the state.
Jeff Strickland
>>>
>> That did not work, which is why the 17th came about.
>
> It didn't work in 1910. It would work very well in today's technological
> environment.
>
Why? Do technology advancements trump partisanship? I think not.
That's actually a good question, and I haven't an answer. But, my state does
have enough Republicans in both state houses to prevent the Democrats from
running roughshod over us. (This is, ironically, a big part of the problems
in the state.) But if the state legislature in my state _today_ had to
select a new US Senator, it could not do it. Seriously, we would go with out
senate representation of the State Guys and Gals were making an appointment.
We need to have our federal representation elected by the people because the
state government is so balled up with partisan bickering that there is no
way they could select a Senator to go to Washington.
I have no interest in disenfranchising anybody -- except state government
officials that can't pass a vote approving wiping their own ass. I live in a
state where the government is by nearly every measure, completely and
utterly ineffectual. Seriously, state government here has lower approval
ratings than Congress.
> I would say the same thing about Republican legislatures. If the people
> of the state elect Republicans to the state legislature then they should
> expect to get a Republican senator. The direct vote isn't going to make
> any difference as far as party alignment unless the campaign is overrun
> with big money from outside the state. If you WANT a Republican as your
> Senator you should be out there working to elect state legislators that
> are Republican.
>
Or, be out there working on behalf of the Republican US Senator that I think
would serve my state better than the others that want the job. I have zero
confidence in my state leglislature. Zero. Not any. None. My state
legislature could not appoint a dog catcher if they were asked to.
Strabo
> "Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
> news:ZKLNm.54299$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
>> That's why you also elect *Representatives*.
>>
>> He's not *your* Senator. He is (supposed to be) the legislature's
>> representative.
>>
>>
>
> There's finally an argument that makes sense. I do not agree with the
> premise, but now I understand where the movement ot dump 17 is coming from.
>
The central government is after all a device of the states
established for the overall benefit of the people of the various
States. Naturally the Framers built in a method for state
representation otherwise the Constitution could not have been ratified.
The 17th A. stabilizes the system of checks and balances. This
instigation is allowed the practice of public welfare and
inflationary spending. The States would not have sanctioned such
irresponsible behavior.
When there is a balance of power government is kept to a minimum
size and cost and things go smoothly.
>
> The US Senate is not a tool of the state senators, it is a tool of the
> people. US Senators ought to represent the people of the state, not the
> legislature of the state.
>
In my opinion the US Senate IS the tool of State legislatures and the
Senate ought to represent the interests of the States while upholding
the demands of the US constitution.
The Senate power is balanced by popular elections to the US House of
Representatives. Representatives owe allegiance to the US constitution
and the voters.
The central government has been sold as the sugar daddy of a dependent
population but it is not. The central government *exists only* to
facilitate those functions which cannot be accomplished by individual
States.
At the State: Each state legislature is elected by the people to
represent them. State legislators are to balance the demands of
their constituents with the overall interests of their State. This
is where the Citizen should concentrate his attention.
What about State legislatures which do not seem to work?
In some States, California for example, a significant percentage
of legislators were not born or raised in that State. If 35% of your
State legislators were born and raised someplace where social and
political values and expectations differ radically, why be surprised
when your legislature doesn't act in an expected manner.
This is what has happened to California and Colorado in recent years.
In such States the legislatures are dominated by well-financed internal
cliques which operate according to an outside agenda to sabotage
traditional values while promoting 'progressive' values. Yes, a
conspiracy.
Jeff Strickland
<s...@above.com> wrote in message
news:nomig5d849bhhih5c...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:41:20 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> If the Democrats rule the state then why wouldn't your Senator be a
>>> Democrat regardless of your particular vote for national Senator??? It
>>> seems that you are looking to disenfranchise the other people in your
>>> state who put Democrats onto the state legislature.
>>>
>>
>>That's actually a good question, and I haven't an answer.
>
> national politician
>
> Moreover, a state politician can be more easily
> corrupted by less money.
>
Are you suggesting that a US Senator that is appointed by the State
Legislature is corrupted more or less than a US Senator that is elected by
the voters of his or her state? That's absurd.
I'd argue that the corruption of an appointed US Senator would be greater
than one that is elected, especially if your view is that state legilsators
are themselves corrupted or corruptable.
If your argument is that because state legislators are corrupted, then we
should abolish the 17th Amendment so these officials can appoint the US
Senators, you have a turly absurd argument.
Charles Bell
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
> > "Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
> >news:ZKLNm.54299$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
> >> That's why you also elect *Representatives*.
>
> >> He's not *your* Senator. He is (supposed to be) the legislature's
> >> representative.
>
> > There's finally an argument that makes sense. I do not agree with the
> > premise, but now I understand where the movement ot dump 17 is coming from.
>
> The central government is after all a device of the states
> established for the overall benefit of the people of the various
> States. Naturally the Framers built in a method for state
> representation otherwise the Constitution could not have been ratified.
>
> The 17th A. stabilizes the system of checks and balances. This
> instigation is allowed the practice of public welfare and
> inflationary spending. The States would not have sanctioned such
> irresponsible behavior.
>
A better plan is to abolish the Senate and the Supreme Court's power
of judicial review to nullify Congressional law and replace the Senate
with a Constitutional Committee whose members are appointed by the
states -- to nullify Congressional law and perhaps also having the
power to approve Presidential appointments and treaties. The Committee
does not even have to work out of Washington D.C.
Conceptually, the Senate was supposed to be like the House of Lords in
Britain to halt or at least slow down legislation which was thought to
be a significant change in ancient law, but instead of representing
the nobility and their interests against the sovereign, the Senate was
to represent the States in their interests against the federal
government. A Constitutional Committee would do just that which the
Senate, especially a directly elected Senate, never quite did. The
Committee would furthermore represent a balance against a federal
judiciary that now effectively has absolute power over the states.
Charles Bell
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:38:24 -0800 (PST), Charles Bell
>
> <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >A better plan is to abolish the Senate and the Supreme Court's power
> >of judicial review to nullify Congressional law and replace the Senate
> >with a Constitutional Committee whose members are appointed by the
> >states
>
Obviously the lack of explicit provision in the Constitution for
testing conformity of law to the Constitution has caused a failure.
Poetic Justice
>
>> A better plan is to abolish the Senate and the Supreme Court's power
>> of judicial review to nullify Congressional law and replace the Senate
>> with a Constitutional Committee whose members are appointed by the
>> states
>
NOPE but to roll back the "improvement" with the 17th might reverse some
ills.
--
Charles Bell
wrote:
How? The Senate -- without a specific charge to mind the
constitutionality of law or to protect states' rights -- is the same
with or without direct election.
Strabo
> politicians t'would seem more dangerous.
>
State legislators are much more easily monitored and controlled by
diligent citizens.
Compare this to the federal congress today which is largely composed of
career elitists who don't care what their constituents or their State
legislatures want or believe.
In other words there's nothing to lose by tossing the 17th A.
Michael Coburn
What a wonderful sentiment! And what a hopeless Pollyanna. Senatorial
elections cost an average of 12 million bucks. That money does not come
from "the people of the state" in underpopulated states. It comes from
the national party and the lobby. You seem to think that is just fine.
Michael Coburn
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:27:55 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> one only has to look at any state legislature
>
> Doctors
>
> Lawyers
>
> Real estate agents
>
> Insurance reps
>
> various corporate represenatives
The STATE representatives (State Legislators) are elected in SMALL
constituencies where it is entirely possible for the people to DIRECTLY
control the elections by going door to door if necessary. Big money will
not prevail in such elections. As such, the people are better
represented through the indirect control of the Senators.
Michael Coburn
> Jeff Strickland wrote:
>> "Strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message
>> news:ZKLNm.54299$gg6....@newsfe25.iad...
>>> That's why you also elect *Representatives*.
>>>
>>> He's not *your* Senator. He is (supposed to be) the legislature's
>>> representative.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> There's finally an argument that makes sense. I do not agree with the
>> premise, but now I understand where the movement ot dump 17 is coming
>> from.
>>
>>
> The central government is after all a device of the states established
> for the overall benefit of the people of the various States. Naturally
> the Framers built in a method for state representation otherwise the
> Constitution could not have been ratified.
>
> The 17th A. stabilizes the system of checks and balances. This
> instigation is allowed the practice of public welfare and inflationary
> spending. The States would not have sanctioned such irresponsible
> behavior.
>
> When there is a balance of power government is kept to a minimum size
> and cost and things go smoothly.
(sigh)
Idiots believe that a direct election of Senators represents the will of
the people. In assures the will of the Washington lobby and the two
political parties. As it us money decides who will sit in the Senate.
The intent was, in fact, to do so. But the situation has now left the
confines to which it was addressed. It was done as it is done to protect
the land owners from assault by the more populist House of
Representatives. In its current form it is simply a tool of oppression
as the multinational corporations buy as many small state senators as
they might need.
Michael Coburn
> "Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:he81u...@news1.newsguy.com...
>>>>
>>> That did not work, which is why the 17th came about.
>>
>> It didn't work in 1910. It would work very well in today's
>> technological environment.
>>
>>
> Why? Do technology advancements trump partisanship? I think not.
In a way they do. It is no longer possible to hide the truth from those
who seek it. The unfortunate reality may be that few seek it. Is that
is the case, however, then more "democracy" will be less.
I think you are from the crippled state of California that requires a
mere 51% majority to change the state constitution and a 60% majority to
pass a budget. That is called "stupidity on steroids". The other
problem is the lack of decent representation of the people of California
in their legislative assemblies.
http://thirty-thousand-org.blogspot.com/2009/10/freedom-and-legislative-
district-sizes.html
> I have no interest in disenfranchising anybody -- except state
> government officials that can't pass a vote approving wiping their own
> ass. I live in a state where the government is by nearly every measure,
> completely and utterly ineffectual. Seriously, state government here has
> lower approval ratings than Congress.
You must live in California.
>> I would say the same thing about Republican legislatures. If the
>> people of the state elect Republicans to the state legislature then
>> they should expect to get a Republican senator. The direct vote isn't
>> going to make any difference as far as party alignment unless the
>> campaign is overrun with big money from outside the state. If you WANT
>> a Republican as your Senator you should be out there working to elect
>> state legislators that are Republican.
>>
>>
> Or, be out there working on behalf of the Republican US Senator that I
> think would serve my state better than the others that want the job. I
> have zero confidence in my state leglislature. Zero. Not any. None. My
> state legislature could not appoint a dog catcher if they were asked to.
Then GET YOUR STATE FIXED, moron. It is _ALL_ up to you. The mean old
nasty federal government will not mess with you so long as your electoral
districts are equally populous and not looking like the "fajita strip" in
Texas.
Michael Coburn
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:41:20 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> If the Democrats rule the state then why wouldn't your Senator be a
>>> Democrat regardless of your particular vote for national Senator???
>>> It seems that you are looking to disenfranchise the other people in
>>> your state who put Democrats onto the state legislature.
>>>
>>>
>>That's actually a good question, and I haven't an answer.
>
> Because a state politician hasn't the same 'rules' as a national
> politician
>
> Moreover, a state politician can be more easily corrupted by less money.
It won't wash, lying fool. The people have MUCH BETTER CONTROL over who
sits in their state legislatures then they do over who is elected as the
Senator from their state.
Michael Coburn
No. That is not the least bit absurd. The corruption that occurs at the
state level is primarily aimed at local and state issues such as whether
or not to use income tax or sales tax or property taxes and whether or
not to grant state funds for the construction of various infrastructure
in particular areas. The selection of a US Senator is of NO interest to
these "corruptors" and if it were of interest it would be in reference to
PORK for the internal business interests of this state as opposed to some
other state.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
The source of corruption in state legislatures is totally different than
the source of corruption in the US Senate. State legislatures are not
corrupted by the Pharmaceutical lobby or by foreign governments operating
through multinational corporations. You can _FIX_ your legislature. You
can't fix the Washington lobby.
Michael Coburn
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 09:06:02 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Are you suggesting that a US Senator that is appointed by the State
>>Legislature is corrupted more or less than a US Senator that is elected
>>by the voters of his or her state? That's absurd.
>
> I'm saying that the influence of money and power on state and local
> politicians is greater, and can be done cheaper
>
> Neut Gingrich believes it
>
> Why not you?
Sure... Trickle down stupidity is aided by a monolithic lock step
political party dedicated to the enslavement of the populous by the
wealthy and the powerful. But such pig shit is much more easily
controlled by smaller electoral districts in which the honest people are
interested in truth and actual representation. And AGAIN! If you
believe the pig shit and the majority of the people in the state believe
the pig shit then you would end up with a pig shit senator. If you
don't want that then it is YOUR responsibility to refute the pig shit.
It is _YOUR_ state and _YOUR_ decision. Not mine and not big pharma.
Strabo
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:29:26 -0800, Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
<snipped>
>>
>> Obviously the people I voted for in my state government are not elected
>> because the Democrats rule the state.
>
> If the Democrats rule the state then why wouldn't your Senator be a
> Democrat regardless of your particular vote for national Senator??? It
> seems that you are looking to disenfranchise the other people in your
> state who put Democrats onto the state legislature.
>
Political parties are not constitutionally recognized therefore there
is no requirement that a particular party should represent. Each State
legislature would set procedure to accommodate this issue.
Michael Coburn
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:18:15 -0500, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> Except hand picked senators by easily corrupted state politicians
>>> t'would seem more dangerous.
>> >
>> >
>>State legislators are much more easily monitored and controlled by
>>diligent citizens.
>
> That's bullshit
>
> Any given local newspaper can be squelched into silence because of the
> power of money held by the advertising
>
> There are no checks and balances on state legislatures, especially in
> states that are one-sided politically
>
> It doesn't take a million dollar businesses to run politicians---a mere
> single businessman can run because it's fairly cheap to win in state
> elections (compared to national)
>
> Any given state legislature is literally a collection of special
> interest represenatives passing laws that favor their business area.
>
> Insurance businesses sit in state legislatures and pass state laws
> dealing with insurance that make them need semi's to haul the money into
> their banks.
If the state of XXX likes corruption then they get what they deserve. It
is THEIR problem and they can deal with it or not. I do not care nor
should you. If they are too damned stupid to clean up THEIR state then a
direct vote for a senator won't do them any good anyway. You are
actually talking about local corruption as was the case in Illinois with
Milosevic. That was a case of a GOVERNOR and not a legislature and it is
an exception as opposed to a rule. But ask yourself what difference it
would make at the national level. You are trying to infer that the
pharmaceutical industry would bribe the entire state legislature to get a
friendly vote in the US Senate. It won't wash. Local bribery is a state
based problem that should be managed by the states themselves. So long
as the electoral districts are equally populous, contiguous and compact
and the ballot boxes are not stuffed then the Feds must leave it alone.
In such a case, provided the legislators are paid a decent salary, you
will not have a corrupt legislature. The salary is important. You want
challengers to be looking at all times to kick the incumbent out and take
his job. Nothing breeds corruption more than shit salaries.