How do you guys feel about going back to state legislatures choosing Senators

[Bastiat's The Law]

Do you think this would be a benefit to the country? Do you think it would help or hinder the liberty movement? On one hand we probably wouldn't have gotten Rand Paul nominated and elected, but states like New Hampshire who are ahead of the game when it comes to local political activism would probably be sending two very liberty minded Senators to Washington. What say you?

[acptulsa]

I say yea. Anything that gives state governments more power over Washington is all right by me.

[GunnyFreedom]

No question yes, the 17th Amendment is precisely why Washington DC has run amok. There is currently no State check to balance Federal power, and that's why the Federal Government is spiraling out of control.

I mean, it will never happen, but we desperately need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

[heavenlyboy34]

Do you think this would be a benefit to the country? Do you think it would help or hinder the liberty movement? On one hand we probably wouldn't have gotten Rand Paul nominated and elected, but states like New Hampshire who are ahead of the game when it comes to local political activism would probably be sending two very liberty minded Senators to Washington. What say you?
It would be a good start. Direct election of senators has made the system even more corrupt than could have been imagined. :eek:

[Pericles]

Repeal 17A

[scrosnoe]

agree with repeal of 17th Amendment!

[Bastiat's The Law]

It would be a good start. Direct election of senators has made the system even more corrupt than could have been imagined. :eek:
It certainly brings money into the equation. You might be able to win over liberals with that argument.

[tsai3904]

Here's a good read on the 17th amendment by Missouri Rep Paul Curtman:

http://paulcurtman.weebly.com/2/post/2012/05/article-1-section-3-state-sovereingty-and-the-united-states-senator.html

[Bastiat's The Law]

So far everyone wants them repealed.

[tttppp]

Do you think this would be a benefit to the country? Do you think it would help or hinder the liberty movement? On one hand we probably wouldn't have gotten Rand Paul nominated and elected, but states like New Hampshire who are ahead of the game when it comes to local political activism would probably be sending two very liberty minded Senators to Washington. What say you?

Why not just do away with all Senators? Their job is worthless.

[Travlyr]

Without question! Yes!

[James Madison]

Why not just do away with all Senators? Their job is worthless.

It's only worthless because they are elected by the general public. The Senate was meant to be the States' bulwarck against Federal power grabs.

[juleswin]

Do you think this would be a benefit to the country? Do you think it would help or hinder the liberty movement? On one hand we probably wouldn't have gotten Rand Paul nominated and elected, but states like New Hampshire who are ahead of the game when it comes to local political activism would probably be sending two very liberty minded Senators to Washington. What say you?

What difference will it make if the same idiots who vote for senators now vote for governors who the select the senators? Its the people doing the voting not the voting system

[sailingaway]

In my state it would mean only major statists. I think unfortunately (look at Governors) there are fewer good state governments than conservative states. I'd honestly have to think about it. I think it should have stayed that way for checks and balances and if I could make it have never changed I'd want that. I just know if my state chose our Senators we wouldn't have had the few quasi conservatives we have had. Our legislature is ALWAYS a lost cause. Maybe the good states would outweigh the bad.

[juleswin]

No question yes, the 17th Amendment is precisely why Washington DC has run amok. There is currently no State check to balance Federal power, and that's why the Federal Government is spiraling out of control.

I mean, it will never happen, but we desperately need to repeal the 17th Amendment.

You sure it doesnt have more to do with expanding the voting population to just about every citizen?

[Travlyr]

Do you think this would be a benefit to the country? Do you think it would help or hinder the liberty movement? On one hand we probably wouldn't have gotten Rand Paul nominated and elected, but states like New Hampshire who are ahead of the game when it comes to local political activism would probably be sending two very liberty minded Senators to Washington. What say you?

1913 was a very bad year for freedom. Hemp was outlawed, the Income Tax was begun, The IRS, FBI, CIA, NSA, and the League of Nations begun operations. The Federal Reserve System was implemented, The 17th Amendment was "passed', Prohibition won... although the Amendment wasn't passed for a few more years... The Prohibition Movement won in 1913. 1913 was a very bad year for Liberty.

[tttppp]

It's only worthless because they are elected by the general public. The Senate was meant to be the States' bulwarck against Federal power grabs.

No. They are worthless because they have no accountability, nomatter who elects them. Its just a bad management structure.

[VIDEODROME]

I have heard complaints that Senate seats were basically sold in backroom deals. That there would be more wide spread versions of what Rod Blagojevich did with trying to sell Obama's senate seat.

While this is a valid concern, I still think turning it over to election is ridiculous. If anything good could come from Senate appointment by the Governor and Legislature it would be more turnover in the senate. In Michigan we've had Carl Levin for freakin ever.

[James Madison]

No. They are worthless because they have no accountability, nomatter who elects them. Its just a bad management structure.

They are accountable to the state legislatures.

[tttppp]

They are accountable to the state legislatures.

Thata bs. No offense. Who is responsible for our countries problems? Your senator? My senator? Congressman? President? Governor? State reps? Mayors? Etc. See my point you can't pinpoint blame on anyone so the same shitty people keep on keeping on.

[VIDEODROME]

What if one senator was appointed by the Governor and the other senator appointed by the Legislature? Would that lead to different representation and also be like a check and balance? Or am I just kidding myself?

[tttppp]

What if one senator was appointed by the Governor and the other senator appointed by the Legislature? Would that lead to different representation and also be like a check and balance? Or am I just kidding myself?

If you want checks and balances, how about holding the president accountable for his promises, among other things/

[VIDEODROME]

If I had my way a the departing president would be booted of the back of moving truck in the middle of Detroit a 3am.

[Henry Rogue]

I'm 100% for repeal of the 17th amendment. As Travlyr stated it was one of the many evils born in 1913. It is a lot easyer to circumvent the Constitution when an important check and balance is removed. Separation of powers.

[Free in CT]

The 17th amendment should be repealed. Popular election of Senators has, in effect,
ended the Federal system as it was originally designed by the founders. The Constitution
would never have been ratified had the Senate not been in place to represent the states.

Senators were not meant to represent the interests of the people, they were meant to
ensure the power of the states was preserved in the Federal system.

[James Madison]

Thata bs. No offense. Who is responsible for our countries problems? Your senator? My senator? Congressman? President? Governor? State reps? Mayors? Etc. See my point you can't pinpoint blame on anyone so the same shitty people keep on keeping on.

We the People are responsible for this mess. Every one of us.

[kathy88]

1913 was a very bad year for freedom. Hemp was outlawed, the Income Tax was begun, The IRS, FBI, CIA, NSA, and the League of Nations begun operations. The Federal Reserve System was implemented, The 17th Amendment was "passed', Prohibition won... although the Amendment wasn't passed for a few more years... The Prohibition Movement won in 1913. 1913 was a very bad year for Liberty.

1913 was the shittiest year. 2013 will be the 100th anniversary of all that crappy legislation. Maybe we can use that to our advantage to get the message out...

[heavenlyboy34]

We the People are responsible for this mess. Every one of us.
Not true. This is a victim-blaming attitude. The people responsible are responsible. (like the authors of the 17th amendment)

[tttppp]

We the People are responsible for this mess. Every one of us.

No. We are not in charge. And I certainly did not support any of the idiotic policies we have today.

[heavenlyboy34]

1913 was a very bad year for freedom. Hemp was outlawed, the Income Tax was begun, The IRS, FBI, CIA, NSA, and the League of Nations begun operations. The Federal Reserve System was implemented, The 17th Amendment was "passed', Prohibition won... although the Amendment wasn't passed for a few more years... The Prohibition Movement won in 1913. 1913 was a very bad year for Liberty.
And the very next year WWI began a century of unnecessary warfare that has undermined liberty of people all around the world. :(

[James Madison]

Not true. This is a victim-blaming attitude. The people responsible are responsible. (like the authors of the 17th amendment)

Can anyone here say they have given their full effort in this fight? I haven't...so I am partially to blame.

[ClydeCoulter]

I can be counted among the repeal the 17th advocates. And, state legislators should have the power with 2/3 to recall their senator(s).

[SilentBull]

Absolutely. The 17th amendment takes control away from the states. Before, a senator could be recalled by a state for voting against the interests of the state, or the constitution. Today, senators don't have to answer to anyone.

I wrote an article about the 17th amendment a while back: Why the 17th amendment is bad and should be repealed (http://www.truthinexile.com/2012/02/09/why-the-17th-amendment-is-bad-and-should-be-repealed/)

[mad cow]

Repeal the 17th.

[Bastiat's The Law]

I should've made this into a poll.

[GunnyFreedom]

You sure it doesnt have more to do with expanding the voting population to just about every citizen?

Yes, quite sure. Before the 17th A we had a check against "Bread and Circuses" via the Legislative election of Senators. The Senators were in a position to see bread and circuses and eliminate it. Now the Senate has BECOME bread and circuses. And so that has become the bulk of legislation.

As to bad State governments, I have repeated like a mantra since 2007 on here that it's easier to take over State governments than federal. It's easier to take over State government than federal. It costs less *per electorate person covered* than federal. Under the former system, I believe Ron Paulers today would have a lot more incentive to pay attention to that and work foremost on their State governments, and that we would likely be 50% to 100% ahead of where we are now.

At that point, if our philosophy held majorities in a majority of states, and our people were willing to work it, it would be a LOT easier to reform State and federal governments without a 17th Amendment than with. If you own your state you own everything, and States are WAY easier to secure than Washington.

So yes, even for those with bad legislatures I think it is a good thing. What YOU need to do is start working for 2020 RIGHT NOW. Listen, if you are in a Conservative state with a liberal gerrymandered legislature, and are therefore opposed to a 17th A repeal (which I fully understand) is start fighting for 2021 redistricting in your state RIGHT NOW. that is the only election you have to win right now, is your 2021 legislature. Do that, and that will change the whole equation.

[sailingaway]

No because the states are mostly corrupt now too. At least, I don't see it as a panacea. I'm open to being persuaded.

[GunnyFreedom]

No because the states are mostly corrupt now too. At least, I don't see it as a panacea. I'm open to being persuaded.

Well, yes they are. And they are gerrymandered all to frell too, but we have an advantage there because we appeal to both parties. Plus it costs something like 1/4 of the money PER VOTER than it does Congress etc.

[GunnyFreedom]

our big battles ill all be int he primaries unless we lose our minds and walk into a D+13 and expect to come out OK. But we can take out a lot of leaning D districts that other Reps couldn't imagine.

ETA: Our most fertile ground will probably be in the D+2 to D+7 area. The deeper you go, the less chance of a primary, but the more you have to win blue voters.

[matt0611]

Its a step in the right direction. I support it for what its worth.

[heavenlyboy34]

our big battles ill all be int he primaries unless we lose our minds and walk into a D+13 and expect to come out OK. But we can take out a lot of leaning D districts that other Reps couldn't imagine.
ETA: Our most fertile ground will probably be in the D+2 to D+7 area. The deeper you go, the less chance of a primary, but the more you have to win blue voters.
Not necessarily. Just run on whatever ticket is most likely to win. RP would agree with me. If you're going to play the partisan game, rig it in your favor. ;)
(Larry McDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_McDonald) was a "D", btw) IMO, at least one "liberty person" should run as a dem in every race possible to push the debate more towards liberty.

[GunnyFreedom]

Not necessarily. Just run on whatever ticket is most likely to win. RP would agree with me. If you're going to play the partisan game, rig it in your favor. ;)

Oh believe me, I have a regional plan for that too, but you will have primaries on that side too, and their establishment is even more hostile.

ETA: on the bright side, I live relatively close to the region where that strategy has an amazing shot at success. One among the million and ten other things I am trying to make happen lol.