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.
There were distinct arguments and reasons for the 17th Amendment, three of which caused or could cause serious harm to the management and governance of not only the States, but the Union as well.
I asked you where you learned that the founding fathers had a higher trust in government than the people, it was a question. I even followed it up with a question mark which even children recognize means its a question.
I didnt get personal, YOU DID.
Still waiting for you to answer the question and validate it as one bit accurate.
Challenging someone's "learning" IS getting personal. It is your lifeline to "debate", however. Try not to learn first, begin with analyzing by asking questions... "why?". Then you will "learn".
Because they wanted each state to have equal power in what goes on in this country. You are saying the sates should have unequal representation according to population.
In their wisdom the founders did not want our supreme court judges to run for office, nor our US senators. I can only guess that they did not want to politicize the US senate nor the SCOTUS. So what is next, we amend the constitution so we can start electing supreme court justices?
You could provide proportional representation or redistrict the states.
The Senate distribution may have made sense in Colonial Times. But in times of 60 to 1 population differences in makes little sense.
The present system says one sixth of the population controls one house of Congress.
Challenging someone's "learning" IS getting personal. It is your lifeline to "debate", however. Try not to learn first, begin with analyzing by asking questions... "why?". Then you will "learn".
Still waiting for you to sight some examples of this trust the founding fathers had in "Big Government" rhater than attacking me. Why cant you list just a few?
Still waiting for you to sight some examples of this trust the founding fathers had in "Big Government" rhater than attacking me. Why cant you list just a few?
Why? You can't think for yourself? May be, I should help and hopefully it will help you stop running around in circles.
So, why do you think they instituted the Senate the way they did? (Hint: They wanted to protect "select people" from "people").
Why? You can't think for yourself? May be, I should help and hopefully it will help you stop running around in circles.
SURPRISE.. No examples there either. Wow, how difficult is it for you to provide just one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
So, why do you think they instituted the Senate the way they did? (Hint: They wanted to protect "select people" from "people").
Wrong, they wanted to protect people from the government and wanted to keep the federal government from growing out of control without checks and balances from the states.
What were you saying about thinking for yourself? Try not to fail so hard on your next reply sighting a REAL example.
SWrong, they wanted to protect people from the government and wanted to keep the federal government from growing out of control without checks and balances from the states.
"Select people" from government of the "people", yes. And I'm sure the idea you maintain excluded women and "certain people" for good reasons.
"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body"
- James Madison, 1787
"Select people" from government of the "people", yes. And I'm sure the idea you maintain excluded women and "certain people" for good reasons.
"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body"
- James Madison, 1787
Supporting the minority from the majority doesnt mean they supported big government
Supporting the minority from the majority doesnt mean they supported big government
"Big government" happens to be your choice of words. To allow state governments to "appoint" senators puts more faith in those running the state than in the people to elect who they want to, for the purpose.
The Framers were conservative men who believed that people would do better with as little government restriction and regulation as possible. But they acknowledged that some government was necessary. So they set up a government where making laws was difficult and complicated. Four different groups had to agree before a bill could become law and stay that way.
1.) Citizen legislators who served for two years, then returned to their real jobs as ordinary citizens. (House). It was assumed they would look out for the interests of private individuals.
2.) Professional politicians who served for six years (Senate). It was assumed that they would be loyal to their state governments (against the Fed taking power away from the states). For this purpose, they were to be appointed by that state government, and so they would look out for the state govt's interests and prevent the Fed from usurping state power.
3.) A man of great integrity, could be a lawyer or politician (President). Elected by a group of representatives (Electoral college) who in turn were elected by the people.
4.) A group of lawyers or other such knowldegable men appointed by the Prez and confirmed by that group that looks out for the states' interests (Supreme Court and lower Fed courts).
All four of those very different groups, had to agree before any bill became (or was kept as) law. If any one of those groups didn't like a bill, it went into the trash can.
Note that only one of these groups could be counted on to remain loyal to the interests of the States and keep the Fed from taking away too much state power and expanding into huge size: The Senate.
And the 17th amendment targeted that very loyalty, and eliminated it. Now there is NO part of the Federal government, that can be expected to stand up for the "small Federal government" ideal the Framers had written the Cosntitution to defend.
And the crowning irony? The excuse the people pushing the 17th amendment used, was that "It's too hard to pass legislation!"
Well, guys, it was SUPPOSED to be hard! That was the exact reason things were set up that way! Once we got the basic rules into place that everybody agreed were necessary, there was supposed to be not a whole lot left for the Federal government to do, aside from routine running of the government that was already in place and taking care of emergencies like wars etc.
But that was exactly what the big-government advocates DIDN'T want, of course. And so we wound up with the 17th amendment.
I have long held that it should be repealed. And I see no reason to change that stance now.... far from it.
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.
