Conservatives want to repeal the 17th amendment?

Are they really that conservative, they think it would hurt the Democrats and give them a 2/3rds majority. 2/3rds majority for what.

Why do they need that, when as soon they have controll of the senate, they cave on Obama care and give Obama a big gigantic budget and don't like conservatives deas for anything, anyhow, accept for a few things and thats about it.

The only answer I can think of would be corruption.

Many people think it's to start a successful impeachment/conviction of Obama.

67 sends him to Heaven.

Why bring up a 2 1/2 year old story?

Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble

talkingpointsmemo.com...

originally posted by: xuenchen
Many people think it's to start a successful impeachment/conviction of Obama.

You actually need a reason to impeach/convict Obama - despite what you may personally want.

a reply to: hellobruce

Well duh IRS scandal alone is enough

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: xuenchen
Many people think it's to start a successful impeachment/conviction of Obama.

You actually need a reason to impeach/convict Obama - despite what you may personally want.

Actually I prefer Obama stay in office.

He's doing a great job destroying the Democrat Party.

a reply to: hellobruce

Oh ok if it is something they want and they have everything in 2017. You have Jeb Bush and then Republicans have controll of the House and Senate. If that is what they believe and want. It really doesn't matter how old the story is.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: hellobruce

Well duh IRS scandal alone is enough

Sure about that? No one else in government seems to think so, as nothing is being done about it against Obama.

a reply to: hellobruce

Was being sarcastic, guess the could have made it look either way.

Ya I don't think there is a case for it at all.

originally posted by: warren408
Are they really that conservative, they think it would hurt the Democrats and give them a 2/3rds majority. 2/3rds majority for what.

Why do they need that, when as soon they have controll of the senate, they cave on Obama care and give Obama a big gigantic budget and don't like conservatives deas for anything, anyhow, accept for a few things and thats about it.

The only answer I can think of would be corruption.

The Senate is/was still controlled by Democrats.

The new Congress starts in January.

Obama will go bat crazy with vetoes and unchecked wild Executive Branch actions.

originally posted by: hellobruce
Why bring up a 2 1/2 year old story?

Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble

talkingpointsmemo.com...

I hate politics. Its always a hidden agenda…

Supporters of the plan say that ending the public vote for Senators would give the states more power to protect their own interests in Washington (and of course, give all of us "more liberty" in the process.)

I get that, though. The "power structure" is always going to try and circumvent the limits and safeguards placed there by the Constitution.

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

empeaching political leaders in the U.S does not matter. Because they get that sort of power in the first place through corperate sponsorship in order to fund their campaigns.

In return they push forth bills that such interested grouped who have invested heavily into their rise to power. If you know down one Pion, another will be put in place.

Last i checked, All senators got to where they are through corperate sponsorship.

And dipping into the tax fund.

Conservatives want to repeal the 17th amendment?

Why should I give a rats snip?

'Liberals' have tried since 1934 to repeal the second amendment.

a reply to: warren408

The reason why it is suggested is because then the US Senators would be directly accountable to the people they represent. It's a form of replacing the current model with the model that existed originally, an attempt to move us back to Federalism. Senators don't listen to the people anymore, they listen to special interests and K Street lobbyists.

That's why the 17th should be repealed. Has nothing to do with impeaching Obama, because by the time the amendment process were complete he would be out of office.

a reply to: neo96

And therefore by some twisted logic, a mythical campaign to amend the 2nd amendment means it is OK to amend the 17th amendment - which has nothing to do with the right to bear arms?

How does that work??

a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

It's "okay" to repeal ANY amendment if there are the votes to do it and state legislatures to ratify it. That's how our system is set up.

originally posted by: warren408
Are they really that conservative, they think it would hurt the Democrats and give them a 2/3rds majority. 2/3rds majority for what.

Why do they need that, when as soon they have controll of the senate, they cave on Obama care and give Obama a big gigantic budget and don't like conservatives deas for anything, anyhow, accept for a few things and thats about it.

The only answer I can think of would be corruption.

A few statements in spirit of debate on where I stand.....its late and Christmas is here...

I am having a hard time following your argument, but I shall ask you: what is great about the 17th Amendment? The dilution of power and specific separations of the bicameral Congress was enacted at the onset of the United States for a reason.

The lower House (House of Representatives) was to be more numerous and that of the People; having direct control of the purse and given a strict enumeration of powers.

The upper House (Senate) was to be the go-between of the States and the Federal Government; with full control of how those who served being decided via their state legislatures.

Instead, with the 17th Amendment, we see the Federal Government dictating, contrary to the 9th and 10th Amendments, how each State shall determine their representation.

So yes, they are that Conservative in the sense of conserving the framework so delicately set out by the Founders.

ETA: Senate was originally decided via each States' legislatures; I erroneously wrote "to how they deem fit" or to that effect.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

So yes, they are that Conservative in the sense of conserving the framework so delicately set out by the Founders.

Precisely right, undoing a power grab by the Federal government that eroded away Federalism.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: warren408

The reason why it is suggested is because then the US Senators would be directly accountable to the people they represent. It's a form of replacing the current model with the model that existed originally, an attempt to move us back to Federalism. Senators don't listen to the people anymore, they listen to special interests and K Street lobbyists.

That's why the 17th should be repealed. Has nothing to do with impeaching Obama, because by the time the amendment process were complete he would be out of office.

I think you are completely wrong here. As is currently, with the 17th Amendment in place, they are no longer accountable to the State; the Senate wasn't designed to be democratic in the sense of a "direct democracy" as it is today. It was designed to be indirect, as is the Presidency, and to be the gatekeeper of the States' interests. The House is where the People reside and why it is the most numerous.

Shifting both Houses under the "direct democracy" format via the 17th Amendment has made the Senate no different than the House and quite frankly, has eventually led to this mess we are in.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

On the notion of the erosion of Federalism, I completely agree though.