Conservatives want to repeal the 17th amendment?

a reply to: ownbestenemy

I'm not wrong, that is how the system was originally set up. The Senators were appointed by the state legislatures. And yes, of course they were there to protect and represent the states, that what Federalism is. Perhaps my choice of using the word "people" was confusing, I meant it in the sense that the state legislatures are vastly more accessible to we the people than members of Congress are.

The founders very carefully divided powers between federal and state governments. They were responding to both the colonial aversion to the tyranny of King George III as well as the failure of the Articles of Confederation. Their careful separating and blending of state and national powers guarded against tyranny, allowed for more citizen participation in government, and provided a mechanism for incorporating new policies and programs.

Federalism

As is currently, with the 17th Amendment in place, they are no longer accountable to the State

I think you misunderstood my comment, we are arguing the same thing. This ^^ is absolutely correct. And the reason each state gets only 2 is because all states have equal power in the senate, whereas the House is more population based power of the people.

a reply to: warren408

I want the whole thing retooled. If it can be warped into something like what's happening, it really is time to retool. I know, someone is going to call me a ism and people died for our freedom. It's corrupt and we're a fascist ruled pile of dog dung. It was the plan after all. I'd beware of the fix also. Your way of life isn't what it once was.

Rome was great at one time until it wasn't.

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

Rome was great at one time until it wasn't.

And we didn't learn anything from the fall of Rome. The New Deal is what destroyed us.

It's a damn shame that they don't teach Civics in our schools any more.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

I'm not going to say you're wrong, because you're not. I do, however, like the 17th amendment. I don't see any particular reason why we shouldn't keep it.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: ownbestenemy

I'm not going to say you're wrong, because you're not. I do, however, like the 17th amendment. I don't see any particular reason why we shouldn't keep it.

We just explained the reason, to put the Senators beholden to their respective states instead of K Street lobbyists and special interest groups.

a reply to: intrptr

Hell, why vote for senators, lets just "appoint" them.

Which is ironic, because here in Britain we have appointed and hereditary Peers in the House of Lords, and for years we've been discussing voting for our 2nd Chamber instead.

You're talking about doing the exact opposite.

While I understand the intent behind repealing the 17th, all it would really mean would be exchanging DC lobbyists for the two US political parties. Once control of the state legislature is gained the only people appointed to the Senate will be from the controlling party. Period.

I kind of like the way the people have two more opportunities to reign in an out of control Democrat or Republican party. Returning to the original method would work fine if there were multiple parties.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: intrptr

Hell, why vote for senators, lets just "appoint" them.

Which is ironic, because here in Britain we have appointed and hereditary Peers in the House of Lords, and for years we've been discussing voting for our 2nd Chamber instead.

You're talking about doing the exact opposite.

We were originally set up that way, the state legislators appointed Senators to represent the states themselves. And with the 17th they no longer do that, they are beholden to special interest groups and big-money lobbyists.

a reply to: Montana

While I understand the intent behind repealing the 17th, all it would really mean would be exchanging DC lobbyists for the two US political parties. Once control of the state legislature is gained the only people appointed to the Senate will be from the controlling party. Period.

But the point is they would be there representing the best interest of each state, they would be accountable to the state legislatures themselves.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

But the point is they would be there representing the best interest of each state, they would be accountable to the state legislatures themselves.

No, I'm sorry, but the only people they would be responsible to would be whichever party leadership appointed them. And to whoever had bought and paid for those party leaders. People in this country no longer vote for individuals, they vote for A party. One and only one no matter what that party has done (or failed to do) in the recent past. Therefore the loyalty of politicians is given to a party exclusively since it is impossible to be elected without it's approval.

a reply to: Montana

Okay, then we will keep the current model then, which is whoever writes the biggest check from K Street.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Montana

Okay, then we will keep the current model then, which is whoever writes the biggest check from K Street.

Which is exactly the same as the model you are proposing.... or do you think money doesn't cross state lines for some reason?



The more things change, the more they stay the same.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Then you want to change campaign fundraising, not the way senator's are elected.

You really think if elections went to whoever the state legislature wanted it would make better senators? I mean...there's a ton of money in state campaigns. Why or how would it not shift? We need campaign finance reform, not repealing the 17th amendment.

a reply to: links234

Then you want to change campaign fundraising, not the way senator's are elected.

No, I actually want to go back to the Federalist model the founders of the country set up. The system that they put in place and that existed prior to the 17th being passed and ratified.

That's what I'm saying. The founders were quite wise on the issue and our 17th amendment experiment hasn't worked out in reality as it was envisioned on paper.

a reply to: Montana

Which is exactly the same as the model you are proposing.... or do you think money doesn't cross state lines for some reason?

No it isn't at all. The Senators would then be entirely beholden to the legislatures from their respective states, they would be on their short leash, not the leash of the Washington D.C. lobbyists on K-Street.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Honestly, you really think there would be a difference between K Street lobbyists and the ones at the state level? No way.

The only difference would be the airlines could possibly be saved due to the increase in passengers as the lobbyists flew from legislature to legislature to hand out the checks. State government is every bit as corrupt as the Federal. Surely this is obvious?

On second thought, there would be a difference. Instead of the Senators getting the payoffs, it would go to the state party bosses as these are the folks who would be determining who was sent to DC. At least the money would be spread around more.

A whole new implementation of trickle-down economics!!

a reply to: MysterX

I was being facetious.

a reply to: Montana

Honestly, you really think there would be a difference between K Street lobbyists and the ones at the state level? No way.

There is a massive difference. The legislatures of the states would be lobbying the Senators to vote in the best interest of the state where they come from.

IT EMPOWERS THE STATES. It's fundamental Federalism.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical

There is a massive difference. The legislatures of the states would be lobbying the Senators to vote in the best interest of the state where they come from.

IT EMPOWERS THE STATES. It's fundamental Federalism.

NO THEY WOULDN'T! (Look at that, using all caps automatically makes your argument correct. Wow.) They would be selling their souls to the highest bidder just like they are now! Don't you get it yet? The people don't matter to them. The party bosses would tell the state legislators who to send to the Senate. The state legislators would do exactly as they are told, or they will be guaranteed to lose the next election. Then they would tell the senators how to vote. It's fundamental GREED. Just like now.