Wash Post: The 17th Amendment resurfaces as a campaign issue

[bobbyw24]

By Felicia Sonmez

At a recent town hall meeting, Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) became the latest candidate to suggest that he'd be in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, which calls for the direct election of senators.

Following a few days of "no comment" on the remarks -- as well as charges by rivals Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) and Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams (D) that he is an extremist who wants to "repeal the 20th Century" -- Miller appears to have distanced himself from the comment, saying in a statement that changing the Constitution is not a "practical solution" to the problems in Washington.

"If it weren't for Senators like Lisa Murkowski, voters wouldn't be talking about repealing the 17th amendment," said Miller. "Voters are frustrated by the bailouts, cap & trade and the direction of our country. I share those frustrations and that is why I'm running for the U.S. Senate. Amending the constitution is not the practical solution to changing the problems in DC, changing the people who are there is."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/the-17th-amendment-resurfaces.html

[torchbearer]

pussy. why back down?
stick to your guns and give a lesson on american history and the purpose of federalism and how the connects to state appointed senators.

[james1906]

pussy. why back down?
stick to your guns and give a lesson on american history and the purpose of federalism and how the connects to state appointed senators.

Because Rachel Maddow et al will use it to paint as TeH RaCis

[Southron]

I'm almost entirely in favor of "repealing the 20th century", politically speaking.

[Matt Collins]

It's good this is being talked about, but it is a losing campaign issue. You can't run on this issue and win. But you can run on this issue and educate (which is needed). I have field tested this and even those who are staunch conservatives who want limited government don't understand why repealing the 17th is a good thing. And even after explaining it to them half a dozen times still can't grasp it.

Their line is "well it'll be worse because it'll be even more political if the legislators chose it, backroom deals, etc. The Senators would be one step removed from the people". Even after it's explained why that is irrelevant and shown the contrary history they still refuse to accept it.... grrr...

This issue will take a loooooooooooooong time before people get to understand it.

[Southron]

This issue will take a loooooooooooooong time before people get to understand it.

This is the case for most of our issues but especially with federalism.

The War of Northern aggression was truly the end of the Old Republic.

[Pericles]

I'm almost entirely in favor of "repealing the 20th century", politically speaking.
+1

[AxisMundi]

By Felicia Sonmez

At a recent town hall meeting, Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller (R) became the latest candidate to suggest that he'd be in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, which calls for the direct election of senators.

Following a few days of "no comment" on the remarks -- as well as charges by rivals Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R) and Sitka Mayor Scott McAdams (D) that he is an extremist who wants to "repeal the 20th Century" -- Miller appears to have distanced himself from the comment, saying in a statement that changing the Constitution is not a "practical solution" to the problems in Washington.

"If it weren't for Senators like Lisa Murkowski, voters wouldn't be talking about repealing the 17th amendment," said Miller. "Voters are frustrated by the bailouts, cap & trade and the direction of our country. I share those frustrations and that is why I'm running for the U.S. Senate. Amending the constitution is not the practical solution to changing the problems in DC, changing the people who are there is."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/house/the-17th-amendment-resurfaces.html

Whether We the People hire our State Representatives directly, or we have our State Legislators choose them for us, IMHO, matters not.

I cannot see how such a change would drastically change anything in the Senate, as the same people who canvas We the People for our votes would merely canvas State Legislators for the same position.

[surf]

Whether We the People hire our State Representatives directly, or we have our State Legislators choose them for us, IMHO, matters not.

I cannot see how such a change would drastically change anything in the Senate, as the same people who canvas We the People for our votes would merely canvas State Legislators for the same position.

bingo.

[torchbearer]

Whether We the People hire our State Representatives directly, or we have our State Legislators choose them for us, IMHO, matters not.

I cannot see how such a change would drastically change anything in the Senate, as the same people who canvas We the People for our votes would merely canvas State Legislators for the same position.

um, the state government would reject a senator that would sell it down the river.
it gives the states a voice in the federal government. a voice much needed.
imagine the states having a say in Obamacare through the senate.

[AxisMundi]

um, the state government would reject a senator that would sell it down the river.

That stinks of the "g'ment knows best" mentality, and I do not buy it for an instant.


it gives the states a voice in the federal government. a voice much needed.
imagine the states having a say in Obamacare through the senate.

The States already have a voice in Congress.

Whether We the People hire our Senator at the voting booth, or the State Legislature chooses said Senator, that Senator still represents that state.

The 17th simpyl did not change that aspect of Congress.

[torchbearer]

That stinks of the "g'ment knows best" mentality, and I do not buy it for an instant.



The States already have a voice in Congress.

Whether We the People hire our Senator at the voting booth, or the State Legislature chooses said Senator, that Senator still represents that state.

The 17th simpyl did not change that aspect of Congress.

Arguing governments with an anarch is like talking science with a christian.

[Major_C_Natural]

That stinks of the "g'ment knows best" mentality, and I do not buy it for an instant.



The States already have a voice in Congress.

Whether We the People hire our Senator at the voting booth, or the State Legislature chooses said Senator, that Senator still represents that state.

The 17th simpyl did not change that aspect of Congress.
No, governments generally want to maintain their own power. Why would the State governments allow their senator to transfer their powers to the Federal government?

Government derive their power by popular consent. Having both houses of Congress be popularly elected means that Congress becomes a rubber stamp for the majority of people. That is why the Senate, elected by State legislatures, is necessary to prevent tyranny of the majority by trying to find every way (i.e. the Constitution) to prevent transferring State powers to the Federal government.

[AxisMundi]

No, governments generally want to maintain their own power. Why would the State governments allow their senator to transfer their powers to the Federal government?

Government derive their power by popular consent. Having both houses of Congress be popularly elected means that Congress becomes a rubber stamp for the majority of people. That is why the Senate, elected by State legislatures, is necessary to prevent tyranny of the majority by trying to find every way (i.e. the Constitution) to prevent transferring State powers to the Federal government.

All I see are catch phrases thrown about, to be frank.

While we are a Constitutional Republic, we still operate on the ideals of majority rule, a majority rule limited and guided by our Constitution.

If a majority of Americans wish for, for example, enforcment of immigration laws, there is no difference if Senators who vote on the issue are elected or assigned to their office.

[AxisMundi]

Arguing governments with an anarch is like talking science with a christian.

Are you suggesting that I am somehow an "anarchist"?

[torchbearer]

Are you suggesting that I am somehow an "anarchist"?

no. i don't know you.
only you can answer that.

[tpreitzel]

No, governments generally want to maintain their own power. Why would the State governments allow their senator to transfer their powers to the Federal government?

Government derive their power by popular consent. Having both houses of Congress be popularly elected means that Congress becomes a rubber stamp for the majority of people. That is why the Senate, elected by State legislatures, is necessary to prevent tyranny of the majority by trying to find every way (i.e. the Constitution) to prevent transferring State powers to the Federal government.

Exactly ... mob rule through a simple majority with both chambers of the US Congress elected by an indoctrinated mob. Democracies are simply rule by mob. The two most destructive events in American history were the unfortunate outcome of the Civil War and the passage of the 17th amendment. ;)

[mczerone]

...that he is an extremist who wants to "repeal the 20th Century"

Really? That century full of war? Let's have a do-over, this time we each have to make sure that there is no fighting, and not let big bullies dominate any geographic area except his own property. It would kind of funny to watch Mao in his dirt-field trying to lead 3 goats in formation marching, MLK Jr. being told by Bull Conner that there couldn't be a civil rights parade in Bull's bathroom, or Bill Clinton air-raiding his own backyard.

[Major_C_Natural]

All I see are catch phrases thrown about, to be frank.

While we are a Constitutional Republic, we still operate on the ideals of majority rule, a majority rule limited and guided by our Constitution.
No, we operate not only on majority rule but also preventing tyranny of the majority. A purely majority rule would blatantly ignore the Constitution like how Congress is doing right now.


If a majority of Americans wish for, for example, enforcment of immigration laws, there is no difference if Senators who vote on the issue are elected or assigned to their office.
First of all, immigration and naturalization are enumerated powers of the Federal government and States are not allowed to handle those issues. But if we pretend that the U.S. Constitution did not give the Federal government that power, if the people wanted enforcement of immigration law and the States do not want to abrogate their power, then the individual States would pass their own set of immigration laws, not the Federal government.

[AxisMundi]

no. i don't know you.
only you can answer that.

So then the comment you inserted at the end of your reply was tourettes or something?

Thanks for clarifying.

[torchbearer]

So then the comment you inserted at the end of your reply was tourettes or something?

Thanks for clarifying.

What I post is most often for the others who are reading the post, not so much for the moron who doesn't get it.

[AxisMundi]

No, we operate not only on majority rule but also preventing tyranny of the majority. A purely majority rule would blatantly ignore the Constitution like how Congress is doing right now.

You just repeated what I said.


First of all, immigration and naturalization are enumerated powers of the Federal government and States are not allowed to handle those issues. But if we pretend that the U.S. Constitution did not give the Federal government that power, if the people wanted enforcement of immigration law and the States do not want to abrogate their power, then the individual States would pass their own set of immigration laws, not the Federal government.

The AZ laws merely enforce the Federal Immigration laws, they do nto create any new laws whatsoever.

States enforce federal laws all the time, the silly "War on Drugs" being one of them. Immigration is essentially no different in the State enforcing federal law.

[Major_C_Natural]

You just repeated what I said.Where did you say that mob rule would eventually ignore the Constitution?

The AZ laws merely enforce the Federal Immigration laws, they do nto create any new laws whatsoever.

States enforce federal laws all the time, the silly "War on Drugs" being one of them. Immigration is essentially no different in the State enforcing federal law.No offense or anything but I do not understand the point you are trying to make, other than that States have the choice to enforce unenforced Federal laws. How does this counter my point: If the people wanted a certain law but the States did not want the Federal government to enact that law, then they would direct their Senators to vote against them and enact the law themselves.

[AxisMundi]

Where did you say that mob rule would eventually ignore the Constitution?

"While we are a Constitutional Republic, we still operate on the ideals of majority rule, a majority rule limited and guided by our Constitution."

You merely expanded on my comment.

And we ahve a perfect example of mob rule overstepping our Constitution in our current replacement Motto and Pledge.


No offense or anything but I do not understand the point you are trying to make, other than that States have the choice to enforce unenforced Federal laws.

That is the point I was trying to make, yes.


How does this counter my point: If the people wanted a certain law but the States did not want the Federal government to enact that law, then they would direct their Senators to vote against them and enact the law themselves.

I wasn't addressing that. If I missed it all I can offer in excuse is that I am posting to several threads ons everal forums while trying to do college HW as well.

Busy busy busy. ;)

To address your point...

What evidence is there that Senators acted differently prior to the 17th than they do now?

[AxisMundi]

What I post is most often for the others who are reading the post, not so much for the moron who doesn't get it.

Well, at least I didn't waste too much time before it was evident that you're merely a troll.

Buh-bye.

[torchbearer]

Well, at least I didn't waste too much time before it was evident that you're merely a troll.

Buh-bye.

hasta nunca. ;)
don't let the intertubs hits your ass on the way out.