Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How does returning the election of senators to the state's legislature better than the populice of the state choosing the senator?
The Senate was meant to be of different temperament than the House.
It was supposed to be where wiser, more distinguished statesmen served.
The Senate was not meant to be a battleground of politicians, scammering
for votes. They were supposed to be above that. They were the chosen
representatives of their respective states, true Statesmen with a capital S.
Not weighed down by running political campaigns, not beholden to lobbyists
for money. Unfettered by the demands of a common politician.
The Senate was meant to be of different temperament than the House.
It was supposed to be where wiser, more distinguished statesmen served.
The Senate was not meant to be a battleground of politicians, scammering
for votes. They were supposed to be above that. They were the chosen
representatives of their respective states, true Statesmen with a capital S.
Not weighed down by running political campaigns, not beholden to lobbyists
for money. Unfettered by the demands of a common politician.
I dont know if that was totally the reasonong.
If it was, then I dont understand how not running for political office makes the senator more pure. How does the House whom is chosen by the people and may be beholden to lobbyists, make better choice?
Repealing the 17th- direct election of senators - would go long way to reinstalling the federalist model of balance of power; giving the individual states a seat at the table, along with the people (House of Representative), the Executive Branch (President's Administration) and the Supreme Court.
Nothing vague about that. The balance of power among the four provides the original and necessary checks and balances.
While I agree that repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would restore the original intention of giving the States an equal voice, a good argument can be made for why the Seventeenth Amendment was necessary.
As with all nominations by either Presidents or Governors, if there is not a compelling reason to stop the appointment, it is typically approved by the legislative body. A Governor, beholden to certain special interest groups that got them elected, might nominate Senators with similar interests in protecting those special interest groups that got them elected. The Senate would not represent the State's interests, only the interests of their special interest groups.
Besides, I rather like the idea that it is the people who are directly responsible for the dysfunctional Congress.
While I agree that repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would restore the original intention of giving the States an equal voice. However, a good argument can be made for why the Seventeenth Amendment was necessary.
As with all nominations by either Presidents or Governors, if there is not a compelling reason to stop the appointment, it is typically approved by the legislative body. A Governor, beholden to certain special interest groups that got them elected, might nominate Senators with similar interests in protecting those special interest groups that got them elected. The Senate would not represent the State's interests, only the interests of their special interest groups.
Besides, I rather like the idea that it is the people who are directly responsible for the dysfunctional Congress.
Repealing the 17th removes the power from the constiuents of the state and returns it to the state. How is that liberty?
Repealing the 17th removes the power from the constiuents of the state and returns it to the state. How is that liberty?
Who said anything about liberty? I said repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would restore the original intent of the US Constitution by the founding fathers. Congress was to consist of two bodies: 1) A Senate consisting of two Senators from every State, in order to represent the interests of the State; and 2) A House of Representatives with the number of its members based upon population, in order to represent the interests of the people.
The founders did not trust democracy, and with good reason. All one has to do, even today, is look through the legislation that is introduced to understand that the most radical bills originate in the House. The Senate is suppose to be a more deliberative body whose vested interests should belong to what is in the best interests of their respective States, not the people that elected them.
Who said anything about liberty? I said repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would restore the original intent of the US Constitution by the founding fathers. Congress was to consist of two bodies: 1) A Senate consisting of two Senators from every State, in order to represent the interests of the State; and 2) A House of Representatives with the number of its members based upon population, in order to represent the interests of the people.
The founders did not trust democracy, and with good reason. All one has to do, even today, is look through the legislation that is introduced to understand that the most radical bills originate in the House. The Senate is suppose to be a more deliberative body whose vested interests should belong to what is in the best interests of their respective States, not the people that elected them.
This is the Liberty amendmnet thread or not? Is "liberty" another BS tag line used to confuse the poor old TPer into false patriotism all the while stealing their vote?
At least be honest with the old coots, tell them the Liberty Amendments have nothing to do with real liberty.
Who said anything about liberty? I said repealing the Seventeenth Amendment would restore the original intent of the US Constitution by the founding fathers. Congress was to consist of two bodies: 1) A Senate consisting of two Senators from every State, in order to represent the interests of the State; and 2) A House of Representatives with the number of its members based upon population, in order to represent the interests of the people.
The founders did not trust democracy, and with good reason. All one has to do, even today, is look through the legislation that is introduced to understand that the most radical bills originate in the House. The Senate is suppose to be a more deliberative body whose vested interests should belong to what is in the best interests of their respective States, not the people that elected them.
Amen who has viewed history for the highest prospective..the senate is a check again tyrannical influence who would seek to corrupt use elections to stack the deck in their favor.
This is the Liberty amendmnet thread or not? Is "liberty" another BS tag line used to confuse the poor old TPer into false patriotism all the while stealing their vote?
At least be honest with the old coots, tell them the Liberty Amendments have nothing to do with real liberty.
well its our plan to restore our nation, what is you plan? oh that is right you dont have one..
It about liberty, return the power to states to elect their representation, that is what he meant.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
