It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conservatives want to repeal the 17th amendment?

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Montana




NO THEY WOULDN'T!


Actually they would, we have verifiable proof of this. That's the system that was in place before the 17th Amendment. It was sold on a pack of lies and was a power grab from the states by the federal government. Repealing the 17th would put the power back in the states for them to be in charge of their own state's affairs in the Senate, and not Washington lobbyists.

You act like I'm arguing political theory here, no, I'm telling you what was the set-up and how things worked at the founding of the nation.




posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Oh you are talking about back before corporations were people! Yeah, because this is the same world as then. Politicians will just automatically go back to being honorable and concerned with the welfare of the nation because..... I give up, why would this happen exactly?

I am looking at my state legislature, and there isn't a man (or woman) jack among them I would trust to mop the floor without taking a bribe. And none will so much as decide what to have for lunch until after they have consulted with the party caucus.

I can see we have fundamentally different views of the moral character of our "elected" representatives. I pray that yours is correct, but experience tells me I might as well piss in a boot.

Enjoy!



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I can't comprehend how you get this idea that it would be better for us to allow cronyism to creep farther into our political structure.

Those K Street lobbyists you keep referring to? They'll just shift their money to the state legislatures. Next thing you know we won't be voting for state legislators based on their merits, only on who they'll vote for in the next senatorial election. Governor's will no longer be able to fill vacancies and any vacancies that do arise will have to be argued in the statehouse with little to no input from the populace.

What's to stop state legislators from just electing each other? Or worse, what's to stop them from listening to their party heads in the interest of 'the party'? There'll be no primaries, no debates, no public forums. It'll be a dog and pony show, at best. Shockingly, now that I've done some reading on it, these same arguments were made during ratification over 100 years ago.


Another vital objection to the choosing of Senators by the legislatures ... is found in the fact that in the selection of candidates for the legislatures whose business it is to choose a Senator, every consideration is lost sight of except as to how the candidates, if elected, will vote on the question of senatorship. This becomes the vital issue in all such campaigns, while the question as to the candidate’s qualifications or fitness for the business of general legislation, or as to the views he entertains upon the great subjects of material interest to the State … is wholly ignored.


The 17th didn't just spring up out of nowhere, there was 70+ years of failure leading up to it. You want to go back to that? You want to go back to cronyism and corruption? You want your voice to be silenced by the elites in your state capitol?

Sure, the writers of the constitution had some great ideas, but they lacked some general foresight, which is why we've required 27 amendments to the constitution. I can almost guarantee that we're not done amending it either.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Montana




Politicians will just automatically go back to being honorable and concerned with the welfare of the nation because.....


I didn't say that, I said they would go back to being directly concerned with the welfare of their particular state, because they will be appointed by and answer to their respective state legislatures.

When I use the word "Federalism" do you know what I'm talking about?



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: links234




I can't comprehend how you get this idea that it would be better for us to allow cronyism to creep farther into our political structure.


I've never argued that, straw man. The 17th took power from the states and gave it to Washington, it was an anti-Federalism amendment. Take a second to read please:

Repeal the 17th

At least hear the argument before you reject it. (see my signature)






edit on 28-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

I know you didn't. That's exactly what would happen though.

We've got a lot, I mean a lot, of electoral problems. The 17th amendment is hardly relevant to any of them.

You keep harping on 'the states will get what they want,' that's not how it was at all before the 17th. States should want what their citizens want. The only thing that would matter in some elections would be who would be voting for who as the next senator. Elections became an indirect way of directly voting for senators. The 17th just cut out the middle man. Now we vote (if we vote at all) for people that will actually focus on what our states need, not on who they'll anoint as the next senator.

Another thing, the money isn't going to go away. Like I said earlier, the money will just shift. Lobbyists will still lobby senators in Washington, just as they do now. They'll put money into key elections for state legislatures, rather than into statewide senate elections.

Repealing the 17th amendment would fix nothing that's wrong with our system. It could, in fact, make it worse. You really want to fix some problems you could start with ratifying the congressional apportionment amendment. Taking power away from the people is not the way to go.



posted on Dec, 28 2014 @ 10:54 PM
link   
a reply to: links234




I know you didn't. That's exactly what would happen though.


Then you are arguing from the standpoint of prejudicial arbitrary conjecture, not objective history. That's a fallacy. The 17th Amendment was a power grab by the Federal government, and it's now a disaster. Senators rarely if any stand for what is best for we the people or the states. Repealing the 17th would right that wrong from history and again give that power back to the states which is the fundamental essence of Federalism and balance of power.




States should want what their citizens want.


That's why they elect representatives to the state legislatures. What we have NOW is a Congress with 10-15% approval rating for the simple fact they DON'T listen to we the people.




Repealing the 17th amendment would fix nothing that's wrong with our system. It could, in fact, make it worse.


To believe that you would have to believe a Federalist Republic is worse than a Democracy.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for dinner." ~ Benjamin Franklin




Taking power away from the people is not the way to go.


That was never the intent of the Senate, the Senate was made to empower the states. The House of Representatives is the legislative branch that represented the people. That's why all spending bills originate in the House, and why the House has representatives based on population. The Senate only has 2 per state to make sure that all states have an equal vote.


edit on 28-12-2014 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80




Well duh IRS scandal alone is enough


Ain't no IRS scandal, except the one about the vacuum between Darrel Issa's ears.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: links234

It has its merits, but the premise of why it was needed was because of....gridlock and unfilled seats....



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:44 AM
link   
a reply to: warren408



The only answer I can think of would be corruption.


The original process was for the State Government to appoint the Senators. Each state did it differently. Many were appointed by the Governor usually under the direction of whichever tycoon or gangster 'owned' the Governor. The process was one of oligarchy, aristocracy, crony-ism, and deep corruption.

The 17th Amendment came about because several states fluffed around and left themselves with no representation in the Senate for many years. Repealing the 17th would return everything to the bad old days so the tycoons and gangsters could again control the Senate.

So your conclusion is pretty much spot on.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Each state, via the Constitution, was afforded one possibility pre 17th Amendment....elect senators via State legislature. They were not left to their own devices on this...



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy



Each state, via the Constitution, was afforded one possibility pre 17th Amendment....elect senators via State legislature. They were not left to their own devices on this...


I stand corrected.

The general point of my statement also stands, however. The legislative process was broken beyond repair. Legislatures were bought and sold, legislative elections concentrated on Senator selection instead of state's local issues, and deadlocks deprived states their due representation for years at a time.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical



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


How would that be different if you repealed the 17th? The biggest check from K Street (actually more likely Wichita Kansas) would decide who gets elected by the state legislature. That person would be beholden to the power and money broker in a much more insidious manner than today, and wouldn't have any responsibility to the people or state in any way other than to keep the dark money conduit open to his ultimate benefactor.



posted on Dec, 30 2014 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical



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


You keep saying that, but it is simply NOT true, and repeating it over and over will not make it true.

It was the States themselves that originated the idea. You should repeat that sentence over and over in your head instead of your line: It was the States themselves that originated the idea.

source

Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to prevent the federal government from indirectly absconding with the powers and funds of the states. However, over time various issues with these provisions, such as the risk of corruption and the potential for electoral deadlocks or a lack of representation should a seat become vacant, led to a campaign for reform.

Reformers introduced constitutional amendments in 1828, 1829, and 1855, with the issues finally reaching a head during the 1890s and 1900s. Progressives, such as William Jennings Bryan, called for reform to the way senators were chosen. Elihu Root and George Frisbie Hoar were prominent figures in the campaign to maintain the state legislative selection of senators. By 1910, 31 state legislatures had passed motions calling for reform. By 1912, 239 political parties at both the state and national level had pledged some form of direct election, and 33 states had introduced the use of direct primaries. With a campaign for a state-led constitutional amendment gaining strength, and a fear that this could result in a "runaway convention", the proposal to mandate direct elections for the Senate was finally introduced in the Congress.[]/b


Senators were owned by moneyed interests before the 17th. But then the moneyed interests only had to buy a few votes in the State Legislatures in order to install their man. After the amendment, they had to deal with the entire populace of the State, and that was much, much, much harder to do - at least until they invented Faux News, that is.


edit on 30/12/2014 by rnaa because: link to external source



posted on Jan, 3 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

And they are not bought and sold now? Repeal with better language then.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
Senators were owned by moneyed interests before the 17th. But then the moneyed interests only had to buy a few votes in the State Legislatures in order to install their man. After the amendment, they had to deal with the entire populace of the State, and that was much, much, much harder to do - at least until they invented Faux News, that is.


Which isn't all different than what we see now. So nothing was fixed no? I am sure this is all a plot by "Faux News". God people are so shallow to attempt to differ to an outside entity for their shortcomings.

ETA: They had to, depending on the State, buy off a whole state populace then as they do now....each State, while beholden to the original language of the Constitution, still were able to determine best how they elected such persons to determine the macro of Government. The 17th just streamlined the pay-to-win politics we see today.
edit on 6-1-2015 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join