[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Repeal the 17th Amendment (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/1/2017 11:14:19 AM EDT
|
Repeal the 17th Amendment.
Ratified in 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the election of senators from state legislatures to a popular vote and therefore lessened the influence of the States. |
| Repeal the 17th and the 16th. The federal government should not be able to levy taxes directly on the populace, or borrow money (from the Chinese, Federal Reserve, or anybody else). If the states were to provide the funding for the federal government directly, it would be easier to restrict their activities to those Constitutionally mandated. |
|
Quoted:
lol What do you fellas think the odds of it goi Deal at all 'Cause what they do In Washington They just takes care of NUMBER ONE An' NUMBER ONE ain't YOU You ain't even NUMBER TWO All credit goes to Frank Zappa. The meek shall inherit nothing |
|
Quoted:
Repeal the 17th and the 16th. The federal government should not be able to levy taxes directly on the populace, or borrow money (from the Chinese, Federal Reserve, or anybody else). If the states were to provide the funding for the federal government directly, it would be easier to restrict their activities to those Constitutionally mandated. |
|
yes! this was a huge win for the progressives. it severed the accountability of senators to state legislatures and the will of the states (i.e. one of the fundamental designs of our republican form of government). Now senators can run amuck with really no accountability back to their state. If you do the research, the senate would look MUCH different if there were no 17th amendment. Something like 31 states are R vs. 18 that are D, one split/not-counted/weird. Assuming things worked the way they should, that would look like 62'ish R senators vs. 36'ish D senators. we'd still have america-hating traitors in there like mcculsky, collins, etc. but the margin for error would be much greater.
I would use mccain as an example, but in the case of the Obamacare vote, he was actually (I think) going along with the will of his shit-stain governor who loves the federal dollars he is getting by participating in Obamacare. It helps balance the budget without actually having to spend less. Until the money stops flowing, then what? reference: Ducey loves O-care |
|
Quoted:
Repeal the 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the election of senators from state legislatures to a popular vote and therefore lessened the influence of the States. |
|
Quoted:
I think we should repeal the 19th Amend too. Ever notice how each add-on amendment kept getting more and more wordy / convoluted? The central scrutinizer talked about that..... |
|
Quoted:
Politicians appointing other politicians to a political job. What could possibly go wrong? Arfcom has a naive faith in state legislatures. Senator doesn't act right, you can freak out on your local and accessible state governments and punish them. |
|
Quoted:
What does it matter now? We're on the hook for some $20,000,000,000,000 or so. A lot to china. As if we can pay off 20 trillion. Freedom was usurped by traitors and we were transitioned into Quoted:
Quoted:
Repeal the 17th and the 16th. The federal government should not be able to levy taxes directly on the populace, or borrow money (from the Chinese, Federal Reserve, or anybody else). If the states were to provide the funding for the federal government directly, it would be easier to restrict their activities to those Constitutionally mandated. Can't blame them too much since spending originates in the House and they haven't been in control very long.................. |
|
Quoted:
Looking forward to the issue of raising the debt "ceiling" this year by the Party of less spending and fiscal responsibility. Can't blame them too much since spending originates in the House and they haven't been in control very long.................. DHS thanks you for your support. |
|
Quoted:
How so? The senators still represent their State, and the State is not actually a physical entity, it's the people who reside in that area. Quoted:
Quoted:
Repeal the 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the election of senators from state legislatures to a popular vote and therefore lessened the influence of the States. |
|
Quoted:
Lets not get into the who repeal thing or the next one might be one you don't want to lose like the 2nd. Come on GD  |
|
Quoted:
How so? The senators still represent their State, and the State is not actually a physical entity, it's the people who reside in that area. Quoted:
Quoted:
Repeal the 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, the 17th Amendment changed the election of senators from state legislatures to a popular vote and therefore lessened the influence of the States. Your view would imply that the States are but mere provinces containing people. |
|
Quoted:
Lets not get into the who repeal thing or the next one might be one you don't want to lose like the 2nd. Come on GD You think 2/3 of the States are going to decide to repeal any part of the Bill of Rights? That would be civil war. |
|
Quoted:
Politicians appointing other politicians to a political job. What could possibly go wrong? Arfcom has a naive faith in state legislatures. |
| Since we're swinging purses, I'd like to see this part of A1S8 enforced: "The Congress shall have Power To . . . coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin . . . ." Nothing in the Constitution authorizes fiat money, and the Framers were intimately familiar with it, having just come through the disaster of a war financed largely by paper. I believe the Constitution authorizes only gold and silver money. |
|
This comes up all the time. And it's laughable how many have never bothered to actual research the question.
Repeal the 17th and it is up to the States on how a Senator is appointed, it should be a win right? The problem is people think that somehow this will 'fix' things when it won't do shit. It's like putting a band aid on a femoral bleed. The problem always has been, and always will be the American Electorate. I'm all for moving things back to the States from the Federal Government, but this one of the places it's not worth spending the political capital. Prior to the 17th, a large number of states already had de facto popular vote for US Senators, nothing in the Constitution prescribe HOW the State Legislative choose it's US Senators. You could repeal the 17th tommorow and I'd venture to guess that all but the most divided states would have laws on the books shortly ordering the State Legislature to follow a popular vote for State Senator. Blue states would still get Blue Senators, and same for red. This shit is short sighted 'quick fix' BS. What to fix something? You need to find ways to starve the beast, the repeal of the 16th would be the biggie. If you combine Corporate, Payroll and Individual taxes you have almost 91% of Federal Revenue last time I looked. Of course, nothing is stopping the Feds from already deficit spending so I doubt that much would change. |
|
Quoted:
The Senate was designed to be a body representing the states as states in opposition to federal power. The people were to be represented by the House. As it is, we now have one roughly apportioned House and one wildly malapportioned house, neither with any institutional inclination to oppose federal primacy. Arfcom does not have naive faith in state legislatures. You have naive faith in unrestrained federal power. Quoted:
Quoted:
Politicians appointing other politicians to a political job. What could possibly go wrong? Arfcom has a naive faith in state legislatures. |
|
Quoted:
Federal power lies in the massive Federal Budget. Slash it and you slash Federal Power. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Politicians appointing other politicians to a political job. What could possibly go wrong? Arfcom has a naive faith in state legislatures. |
|
Quoted:
This comes up all the time. And it's laughable how many have never bothered to actual research the question. Repeal the 17th and it is up to the States on how a Senator is appointed, it should be a win right? The problem is people think that somehow this will 'fix' things when it won't do shit. It's like putting a band aid on a femoral bleed. The problem always has been, and always will be the American Electorate. I'm all for moving things back to the States from the Federal Government, but this one of the places it's not worth spending the political capital. Prior to the 17th, a large number of states already had de facto popular vote for US Senators, nothing in the Constitution prescribe HOW the State Legislative choose it's US Senators. You could repeal the 17th tommorow and I'd venture to guess that all but the most divided states would have laws on the books shortly ordering the State Legislature to follow a popular vote for State Senator. Blue states would still get Blue Senators, and same for red. This shit is short sighted 'quick fix' BS. What to fix something? You need to find ways to starve the beast, the repeal of the 16th would be the biggie. If you combine Corporate, Payroll and Individual taxes you have almost 91% of Federal Revenue last time I looked. Of course, nothing is stopping the Feds from already deficit spending so I doubt that much would change. Undoing the Reapportionment Cases and those addressing similar issues later on would be a bigger fix, IMO, and it would directly address the demographic issues present today. It wouldn't fix blue States, but it would help keep red States from going down that same path, or at least delay it a lot. Under the old way of doing things, before Reynolds v. Sims, California, even today, would have it such that Republicans would have a viable shot at a State Senate majority. Other States that have gone blue since those cases took effect would be more dramatically different politically. And sure, repealing the 16th Amendment would be huge. |
|
Quoted:
That's coming now that the party of fiscal responsibility/less spending is in power................ Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Politicians appointing other politicians to a political job. What could possibly go wrong? Arfcom has a naive faith in state legislatures. 
|
|
Quoted:
The 17th Amendment being repealed would not be a quick fix, but it would get rid of one problem in the way our government is constituted. The States should have direct representation in Congress and there should be a check on the people therein. The issue of mandating that the legislature choose someone popular can be easily dealt with my an additional article to the appeal amendment. I also like the suggestion that an article should be included a supermajority legislative recall mechanism for Senators. Undoing the Reapportionment Cases and those addressing similar issues later on would be a bigger fix, IMO, and it would directly address the demographic issues present today. It wouldn't fix blue States, but it would help keep red States from going down that same path, or at least delay it a lot. Under the old way of doing things, before Reynolds v. Sims, California, even today, would have it such that Republicans would have a viable shot at a State Senate majority. Other States that have gone blue since those cases took effect would be more dramatically different politically. And sure, repealing the 16th Amendment would be huge. Quoted:
Quoted:
This comes up all the time. And it's laughable how many have never bothered to actual research the question. Repeal the 17th and it is up to the States on how a Senator is appointed, it should be a win right? The problem is people think that somehow this will 'fix' things when it won't do shit. It's like putting a band aid on a femoral bleed. The problem always has been, and always will be the American Electorate. I'm all for moving things back to the States from the Federal Government, but this one of the places it's not worth spending the political capital. Prior to the 17th, a large number of states already had de facto popular vote for US Senators, nothing in the Constitution prescribe HOW the State Legislative choose it's US Senators. You could repeal the 17th tommorow and I'd venture to guess that all but the most divided states would have laws on the books shortly ordering the State Legislature to follow a popular vote for State Senator. Blue states would still get Blue Senators, and same for red. This shit is short sighted 'quick fix' BS. What to fix something? You need to find ways to starve the beast, the repeal of the 16th would be the biggie. If you combine Corporate, Payroll and Individual taxes you have almost 91% of Federal Revenue last time I looked. Of course, nothing is stopping the Feds from already deficit spending so I doubt that much would change. Undoing the Reapportionment Cases and those addressing similar issues later on would be a bigger fix, IMO, and it would directly address the demographic issues present today. It wouldn't fix blue States, but it would help keep red States from going down that same path, or at least delay it a lot. Under the old way of doing things, before Reynolds v. Sims, California, even today, would have it such that Republicans would have a viable shot at a State Senate majority. Other States that have gone blue since those cases took effect would be more dramatically different politically. And sure, repealing the 16th Amendment would be huge. Neither the 16th nor the 17th are going anywhere. The American Electorate is getting the Government they want. |
|
Quoted:
So your solution to empower the states is to have the Federal Government tell them how to appoint the senators? So you don't want to repeal it but change it in a way that works better for you, and use Federal Power to enforce it upon the State Legislatives? Neither the 16th nor the 17th are going anywhere. The American Electorate is getting the Government they want. |