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.
The State would choose those to represent the State as a whole, not special interests or those making deals that screw the State's interests as happens now.
Those failing to do so would be replaced.
Bull ****. They appoint cronies to the senate. Let the people of each state popularly elect their representation.
You're saying that a state house and state senate know better then the people of the state who best represents them. I thought republicans didn't trust government. Oh thats right, these calls to abandon the popular vote began when your states demographics started looking slightly different.
You are not really addressing the issue of the states' not having representatives, as originally envisioned in Article I. In order to maintain the balance in the Constitutional Republic form of government; the people have to have their representation - their Congressional District Representative, the state's had their representation by selecting two Senators. The Executive branch and Judicial branch.
Not trusting your own state representative is a totally unrelated issue. if you do not, that is on you for not being engaged in the process. For not helping to elect someone you will trust. For not getting to know him or her. State legislative representatives are our neighbors, or not far away. They are the most accessible of all our elected officials save city council people, or county commissioners.
Your argument is disingenuous, prima facie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
So the people of the state shouldn't have the right to elect their own senators?
Hell I dont trust my own states representation, I'll decide who I want to vote for
I see what you are saying. I can only say that no system is perfect. But, like I responded to Memphis. If she is not happy, nor doesn't trust her state representative, then get involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willsson
My only problem here is that today, we would have a Senator Dewhurst (R) from Texas, rather than a Senator Cruz. And his only real goal would be to join the fraternity of the wealthy of Washington, DC.
Actually, Memphis you have it assbackwards. One, for more than 100 years, they were not your, or my senators. They were the states' senators. Your and my representative have always been our representatives, elected by popular vote. They are called Congressional District Representatives.
A government that swings according to the whims of the majority looks a lot like France, around 1787-1799. The U.S. was never intended to be a democracy, or what the Federalist described as mob rule.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Memphis1979
I vote in my district. I don't want someones representative from two counties over decid8ng my senator. I say, leave it to the people.
Are you scared of the popular vote? A government that doesn't follow the will of the majority, will not long stand
The original good compromise was the people elect their district representatives, the states select their representatives in congress, the two senators. That was the compromise that help make up the balance in our form of government. Keyword is balance. Without all four pieces, then the system is out of balance. The 17th amendment changed that formula, putting the system out of balance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourereric
Two aspects I envisioned:
First, since there are minimum ages for members of the house, senate and president, I would advocate a minimum age for SCOTUS members of age 55. I feel to be a SupremeCourt Judge requires a maximum of wisdom that comes with age, plus that could be a defacto term limit.
Second, the repeal of the 17th probably will not happen, since the creation of both Senate and House were the result of a grand compromise, I would push for each state to have a 3rd Senator to be selected via the old process.
What's amazing and sad is that my parents were born in the early 1940's and still have no knowledge of the 17th.
Would you support the states under Article 5 section 2 of Constitution passing the following Amendments?
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress
~ An Amendment to Restore the Senate (repeal of the 17th Amendment)
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override
~ Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxation
~ An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy
~ An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise (redefining the Commerce Clause)
~ An Amendment to Protect Private Property (curbing abuses under the Takings Clause).
~ An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution
~ An Amendment to Grant States Authority to Check Congress
~ An Amendment to Protect the Vote (requiring photo ID)
Yes or no, What is you take on this?
All would make excellent amendments. The Federal government has become an out of control behemoth that extends well beyond its Constitutional mandate.
There is a good reason that the original intent was to have senators representing their States interest, through appointment by the state legislatures. Meaning the state reps are elected by small districts, more personal to the people in their neighborhoods. They would agree and be held accountable for who they sent to the US Senate. The majority in the states, if their was one, had the pick of the litter. But they also represented what the state wanted, not lobbyist for special interest, in a pay off of you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours.
There is a good reason that the original intent was to have senators representing their States interest, through appointment by the state legislatures. Meaning the state reps are elected by small districts, more personal to the people in their neighborhoods. They would agree and be held accountable for who they sent to the US Senate. The majority in the states, if their was one, had the pick of the litter. But they also represented what the state wanted, not lobbyist for special interest, in a pay off of you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours.
Indeed. Very much correct. It was the Progressive movement, and the Progressive push for Big Government, and the minimization of state powers, that led to the repeal of the 17th Amendment.
Would you support the states under Article 5 section 2 of Constitution passing the following Amendments?
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress - No
~ An Amendment to Restore the Senate (repeal of the 17th Amendment) - No
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override - No
~ Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxation - No
~ An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracy - Not sufficient information
~ An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise (redefining the Commerce Clause) - No
~ An Amendment to Protect Private Property (curbing abuses under the Takings Clause). - No
~ An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution - No
~ An Amendment to Grant States Authority to Check Congress - No
~ An Amendment to Protect the Vote (requiring photo ID) - No
Yes or no, What is you take on this?
The only term limit I recognize is the vote.
The Senate was far more corrupt prior to the ratification of the 17th Amendment.
The reason the Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life is to remove them from the political corruption and whims of Congress.
While I do support a Balanced Budget Amendment, with limitations, there are times when Congress must spend beyond its means.
"Federal bureaucracy" is too ambiguous. All governments have a bureaucracy by definition.
The Commerce Clause does not need redefining, it merely needs to be obeyed and not abused by Congress.
Eminent domain is a requirement for any government entity, and as long as "just compensation" is paid for the property as required by the 5th Amendment I have no problem with it.
States already have the authority to directly amend the US Constitution via a State Constitutional Convention in Article V.
Federal statute law supersedes State statute law. States should not be allowed to nullify federal law on a whim.
States control their own voting process, not the federal government. Therefore, there should not constitutional amendment dictating the State voting process, one way or the other.
Would you support the states under Article 5 section 2 of Constitution passing the following Amendments?
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress. Yes
~ An Amendment to Restore the Senate (repeal of the 17th Amendment)giving political hacks instead of the people the power to select Senators? hell, no!
~ An Amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Overridenot sure
~ Two Amendments to Limit Federal Spending and Taxationto how much?
~ An Amendment to Limit the Federal Bureaucracyyes
~ An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise (redefining the Commerce Clause)No
~ An Amendment to Protect Private Property (curbing abuses under the Takings Clause).yes
~ An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitutionthey have the power, if two thirds call a convention
~ An Amendment to Grant States Authority to Check CongressWhat?
~ An Amendment to Protect the Vote (requiring photo ID)no, I'm sure States would abuse this.
Yes or no, What is you take on this?
those are my general views
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.
