Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 32

Thread: Proposal: State Governors as senators?

  1. #1

    Lightbulb Proposal: State Governors as senators?

    What do you guys think about this. . .

    Instead of electing senators, each governor from each state would automatically get a senate seat. I know there are two, and the second one could be either the house speaker of each state or just elected as it is done now.

    I think this would kill two birds with one stone: it makes it more likely for these individuals to hold power away from the federal government (because they personally want it, not just their constituencies), and they usually have term limits anyways.

    Opinions?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    No.


    Consolidating power is never good. NEVER.

  4. #3

    Default

    being a governor is a full time job

  5. #4

    Default

    It was originally up to the states (no, not the people directly) to choose the senators. IMO, i think direct elections for US senator has hurt us and helped take much power away from the states.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danberkeley View Post
    It was originally up to the states (no, not the people directly) to choose the senators. IMO, i think direct elections for US senator has hurt us and helped take much power away from the states.
    How would you suggest that senators be chosen?

  7. #6

    Default

    It'd be best just to disband The State.

    Aggression is immoral. Theft is aggression. Taxation is theft (since I've not found a person yet who agrees with EVERY way the gov't spends their money). Government imposes taxation, and as such, commits aggression, and as such, is INHERENTLY EVIL!

    Quote Originally Posted by Kludge
    Property tax is the most repulsive of these taxes, where the government asserts that it owns your property. If you don't pay your rent to the State, they WILL take your land.

    Here's my favorite form of "government". We have a few LOCAL "general-purpose" funds. We'd have such funds as the Judicial fund, an infrastructure fund (roads) and a restricted peace officer (fire/police/etc.) fund. While not required, paying at least $50 into a fund would allow you to elect those employed in your local area or just the official representative/administrator of the office which you paid for who'd employ others.

    This is the only moral yet efficient system I've found.
    The judicial system would find only aggression immoral and would judge at their own judgment.



    All non-anarchist governments have failed to protect individual rights, consistently and systematically moving towards socialism... or worse. Anarchy is the only just system.

    On Monopolies and Corporatism:

    All we need to worry about are the COERCIVE monopolies, all others seem to promote growth and innovation. Coercive monopolies are created thru government intervention through tax breaks, subsidies and other hypocritical-non-Common-Good-supporting ways. These are the monopolies able to produce low quality goods at high prices because the GOVERNMENT has intervened and squashed their competition thru aggression.

    However, anarcho-capitalism isn't without flaws. It MAY be possible (though VERY unlikely) that a corporation could create a coercive monopoly in a free market. Say a corporation controlled all the oil derricks. If that were to happen, it is possible they could rise to coerce the society into doing it's will.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    How would you suggest that senators be chosen?
    By the state legislatures. It was the Constitutional Check on the Federal government by the governments of the States.

    Great article about the effects of the 17th Amendment: http://www.nationalreview.com/script...0405120748.asp

    “Direct elections of Senators … allowed Washington’s special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations.” - Former Senator Zell Miller
    "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." - Jesus

  9. #8

    Default

    State legislators are also subject to special interests. It would also not prevent the influence of special interests once they got to the Senate. Shouldnt' the people have the right (freedom) to choose who is to represent them?

  10. #9

    Default

    How does this address any problem?

  11. #10

    Default

    Here's a less problematic solution. Apply the law to them. Criminally prosecute them for "high Crimes and Misdimeanors" and "perjury".

    The Constitution says, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

    They all take this oath:
    "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of ________ , and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

    Them voting for a law that violates the Constitution is certainly not preserving the Constitution.

    A good house cleaning is long due. Start impeaching them and others will take notice.

  12. #11

    Default

    I have to admit-

    I find it amusing how it's so ingrained into our mindset:

    Whenever there's a problem, pass a new law. Nevermind that old laws weren't being enforced. Just pass some more!

  13. #12

    Default

    How many senators have violated the Constitution? Names? Cases? Is this a frequent problem? What is the problem with the way Senators are presently chosen?

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    How many senators have violated the Constitution? Names? Cases? Is this a frequent problem? What is the problem with the way Senators are presently chosen?
    By voting for anything NOT expressly authorized by the Constitution, and not modifying the Constitution in doing so, is violating the 10th Amendment.

    Let's start with anything regarding:
    -social security
    -education
    -war on drugs
    -using taxpayer dollars to honor someone with a medal
    -using taxpayer dollars to bail out the airline industry, GM, and other industries
    -using taxpayer dollars to subsidize home loans through programs such as fannie mae and freddie mac
    -using taxpayer dollars for ANYTHING other then a well-regulated militia and navy and taking care veterans
    -international declarations or definitions that do not involve us(such as whether Turkey committed genocide on Armenians over 90 years ago)

    Can you tell me something that they do that IS Constitutional? These days it's a rarity when they actually do something within the confines of what the Constitution allows.

  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ilhaguru View Post
    What do you guys think about this. . .

    Instead of electing senators, each governor from each state would automatically get a senate seat. I know there are two, and the second one could be either the house speaker of each state or just elected as it is done now.

    I think this would kill two birds with one stone: it makes it more likely for these individuals to hold power away from the federal government (because they personally want it, not just their constituencies), and they usually have term limits anyways.

    Opinions?

    There is a separation of powers problem.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Shouldnt' the people have the right (freedom) to choose who is to represent them?
    In the US Senate? Of course not. That's why we have House of Representatives. The purpose of the US Senate is to represent the states.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    How many senators have violated the Constitution? Names? Cases? Is this a frequent problem? What is the problem with the way Senators are presently chosen?
    Wow! To many to name and this is a frequent problem. Visit www .govtrack .us to see what bills are active and have passed in the lagislature.

  18. #17

    Default

    The Constitution does mention the election of senators.
    http://www.law.emory.edu/law-library...nch.html#c7645

    Clause 3:

    No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
    and yet at the same time it also said they would be chosen by the state legislators.
    Clause 1:

    The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,3 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
    And then further down it allows the states to choose their own method for selecting senators and Representatives:
    Section 4


    Clause 1:

    The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
    As for spending items specifically outlined in the Constitution, there is the "common defense and general welfare"
    Section 8


    Clause 1:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    Roads and post offices and courts and promote science and the arts
    Clause 7:

    To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

    Clause 8:

    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

    Clause 9:

    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
    Plus the army and navy. Air force is not specifically mentioned so I guess that would be against the Constitution? Along with the Marines and National Guard.

    The framers of the Constitution did not intend to cover every possiblity- only to establish the ways to achieve desired goals of the people of the United States and those selected to represent them. It did not set out to be the law, only to define how the laws would be created and by whom. It is up to the Congress to decide what to spend money on. The power of the purse was given to the House of Representatives but both houses can propose bills.
    Section 1


    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.



  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by danberkeley View Post
    Wow! To many to name and this is a frequent problem. Visit www .govtrack .us to see what bills are active and have passed in the lagislature.
    Can you show me five that violate the Constitution? And what parts they violate? I would settle for a smaller number.
    Section 1

    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
    It is within their rights to create legisliation- as defined in the Constitution.

    I would agree that bills like the Patriot Act would violate the Habeus Corpus requirement.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post


    As for spending items specifically outlined in the Constitution, there is the "common defense and general welfare"

    Roads and post offices and courts and promote science and the arts

    Plus the army and navy. Air force is not specifically mentioned so I guess that would be against the Constitution? Along with the Marines and National Guard.

    The framers of the Constitution did not intend to cover every possiblity- only to establish the ways to achieve desired goals of the people of the United States and those selected to represent them. It did not set out to be the law, only to define how the laws would be created and by whom. It is up to the Congress to decide what to spend money on. The power of the purse was given to the House of Representatives but both houses can propose bills.
    If you read the Constitution with Annotations, you get a completely different picture then the one you described above:

    "Purpose and Effect of the Preamble
    Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department
    of the Federal Government, the Supreme Court has often referred
    to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. ‘‘Its true office,’’ wrote Joseph Story in his Commentaries,
    ‘‘is to expound the nature and extent and application of
    the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively
    to create them. For example, the preamble declares one
    object to be, ‘provide for the common defense.’ No one can doubt
    that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any
    measures which they deem useful for the common defence.
    But
    suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the
    one more restrictive
    , the other more liberal, and each of them is
    consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the
    intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the
    common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles
    of interpretation, to be adopted?
    ’’"

    http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf2002/010.pdf

  21. #20

    Default

    "Provide for the common defense and general welfare" exists outside the preable as well- see Section 8:
    Section 8


    Clause 1:

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
    and the Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) were granted legislative authority to write the laws as they see fit- subject to the signature of the president or the override of any veto he may declare.
    All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

  22. #21

    Default

    and the Congress (Senate and House of Representatives) were granted legislative authority to write the laws as they see fit- subject to the signature of the president or the override of any veto he may declare.
    Absolutely not true.

    All legislative Powers herein granted... They cannot legislate outside of the boundaries that We The People have granted them to legislate within.

    We gave certain confinement to the Federal Government by writ of the Constitution. They cannot supercede those bounds. But they have and they need to be punished for doing so.

  23. #22

    Default

    Can you provide some examples? Laws against the Constitution need to be brought before the Supreme Court. If people do not like the laws that Congress passes we have the power to try to vote them out and put someone else in. The "herein granted" refers to the House of Reprensentatives having the power to write spending and taxation legislation while either chamber can initiate other forms of legislation. Those were defined in the earlier sections of the Constitutioin.

    If they are passing laws against the Constitution, then yes, those laws should be either vetoed by the President or overturned by the courts or removed or replaced by correct legislation by the Congress.

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Can you provide some examples? Laws against the Constitution need to be brought before the Supreme Court. If people do not like the laws that Congress passes we have the power to try to vote them out and put someone else in. The "herein granted" refers to the House of Reprensentatives having the power to write spending and taxation legislation while either chamber can initiate other forms of legislation. Those were defined in the earlier sections of the Constitutioin.

    If they are passing laws against the Constitution, then yes, those laws should be either vetoed by the President or overturned by the courts or removed or replaced by correct legislation by the Congress.
    I already gave you plenty of examples Zippy.

    Zippyjuan, if "We The People" meant they could do whatever they felt was necessary to "promote the general Welfare", then why would we have been very specific on what they would do? Here's how they were to "provide for the common Defense general Welfare of the United States":

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
    To establish Post Offices and post Roads(very specifically "post" roads, not just any road);
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts(how were they to do this? read further), by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    To provide and maintain a Navy;
    etc
    etc
    etc

    We were VERY specific on HOW they were to "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare".
    Anything outside of the boundaries we established is violating the 10th amendment.

  25. #24

    Default

    how about the state legislatures elect them.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by therealjjj77 View Post
    I already gave you plenty of examples Zippy.

    Zippyjuan, if "We The People" meant they could do whatever they felt was necessary to "promote the general Welfare", then why would we have been very specific on what they would do? Here's how they were to "provide for the common Defense general Welfare of the United States":

    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
    To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
    To establish Post Offices and post Roads(very specifically "post" roads, not just any road);
    To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts(how were they to do this? read further), by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
    To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
    To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
    To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
    To provide and maintain a Navy;
    etc
    etc
    etc

    We were VERY specific on HOW they were to "provide for the common Defense and general Welfare".
    Anything outside of the boundaries we established is violating the 10th amendment.
    Sorry I was misunderstood. I was looking for examples of laws recently passed that violate the Constitution. I was the one who listed the spending categories listed in the Constitution earlier so I do know what I said there.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 02-29-2008 at 01:33 AM.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What is the problem with the way Senators are presently chosen?
    Senators were intended to represent the State, and when appointed by the State, it provides more of a check on the federal government to not take more powers that should be powers of the State instead of the federal government.
    TinyURL, Founder

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilby View Post
    Senators were intended to represent the State, and when appointed by the State, it provides more of a check on the federal government to not take more powers that should be powers of the State instead of the federal government.
    QFT.
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  29. #28

    Default

    bump
    rewritten history with armies of their crooks - invented memories, did burn all the books... Mark Knopfler

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilby View Post
    Senators were intended to represent the State, and when appointed by the State, it provides more of a check on the federal government to not take more powers that should be powers of the State instead of the federal government.
    Does having senators elected by the citizens of the state mean that they are less likely to represent the state than if they are selected by the state government? The latter will increase the likelyhood that the two senators would be of the same party while direct election senators means they are more likely to represent the makeup of the state- ie if half the state considers themselves Democrats and half Republicans then you may have one Democratic senator and one Republican senator. In the case of state leaders picking the senators, the ruling party of the state would name both senators- even if they only represented 51% of the voters. I don't consider that representing the whole state- only half of it. It becomes government by elites, not of the people.

    One way the Senate represents states is by giving each state the same number of senators so that each state has the same voice- giving Delaware the same influence as New York or California.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 02-29-2008 at 01:39 PM.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Does having senators elected by the citizens of the state mean that they are less likely to represent the state than if they are selected by the state government?
    To represent the State government, yes. When the Senators are appointed by the State legislators, they derive their power from not infringing on the rights of the State government. When elected by the citizens, they pander to the people on how to solve problems, on the federal level instead of state level, and thus we achieve the opposite effect.

    Here's a short read:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo93.html
    TinyURL, Founder

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Which current Senators & Governors will be nobodies/somebodies by 2020?
    By RandallFan in forum 2016 Presidential Election: GOP & Dem
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-20-2016, 06:18 AM
  2. Governors make better candidates than Senators meme RIP
    By Galileo Galilei in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-12-2015, 04:17 PM
  3. do any of the new senators/governors excite you?
    By cindy25 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 11-08-2014, 08:49 PM
  4. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 01-15-2012, 08:26 PM
  5. Proposal: State Governors as senators?
    By Ilhaguru in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 10:54 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •