You got to read this.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040814/ap_on_el_se/illinois_senate
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040814/ap_on_el_se/illinois_senate
The 17th Amendment needs to go; it is a ridiculous measure that isolated individual state governments from control over the federal government. Popular election of the HoR and state appointment of the Senate worked very well for America for nearly 140 years.
Prior to the 17th Amendment the Senate was very much like a set of "ambassadors" to the federal government from the several states. They had enormous power, but that power was offset by the popularly-elected HoR -- just like the HoR was prevented from simply being an instrument of mob rule by the appointment of Senators.
Keyes is not the first or only person to advocate repealing the 17th, and hopefully not the last.
Phaedrus
Prior to the 17th Amendment the Senate was very much like a set of "ambassadors" to the federal government from the several states. They had enormous power, but that power was offset by the popularly-elected HoR -- just like the HoR was prevented from simply being an instrument of mob rule by the appointment of Senators.
Keyes is not the first or only person to advocate repealing the 17th, and hopefully not the last.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Phaedrus:
The 17th Amendment needs to go; it is a ridiculous measure that isolated individual state governments from control over the federal government. Popular election of the HoR and state appointment of the Senate worked very well for America for nearly 140 years.
Prior to the 17th Amendment the Senate was very much like a set of "ambassadors" to the federal government from the several states. They had enormous power, but that power was offset by the popularly-elected HoR -- just like the HoR was prevented from simply being an instrument of mob rule by the appointment of Senators.
Keyes is not the first or only person to advocate repealing the 17th, and hopefully not the last.
Phaedrus <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So let me understand where you and Mr. Keyes are coming from. You both want the State Legislatures to determine the members of Congress, instead of the people.
You and Mr Keyes are scarey individuals. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The 17th Amendment needs to go; it is a ridiculous measure that isolated individual state governments from control over the federal government. Popular election of the HoR and state appointment of the Senate worked very well for America for nearly 140 years.
Prior to the 17th Amendment the Senate was very much like a set of "ambassadors" to the federal government from the several states. They had enormous power, but that power was offset by the popularly-elected HoR -- just like the HoR was prevented from simply being an instrument of mob rule by the appointment of Senators.
Keyes is not the first or only person to advocate repealing the 17th, and hopefully not the last.
Phaedrus <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So let me understand where you and Mr. Keyes are coming from. You both want the State Legislatures to determine the members of Congress, instead of the people.
You and Mr Keyes are scarey individuals. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So let me understand where you and Mr. Keyes are coming from. You both want the State Legislatures to determine the members of Congress, instead of the people.
You and Mr Keyes are scarey individuals. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chainsaw <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The U.S. is supposed to be a representative republic. I don't believe that Phaedrus said or even implied that the people shouldn't be the ones voting for the House. We have to remember that the House is only half of Congress.
I'm not a huge fan of this type of government but I see the Founding Father's point in removing the people from as many decisions as possible. Personally, I think that voting should be restricted to people with at least a token understanding of politics which would probably eliminate at least one-third and maybe as much as half.
You and Mr Keyes are scarey individuals. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chainsaw <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The U.S. is supposed to be a representative republic. I don't believe that Phaedrus said or even implied that the people shouldn't be the ones voting for the House. We have to remember that the House is only half of Congress.
I'm not a huge fan of this type of government but I see the Founding Father's point in removing the people from as many decisions as possible. Personally, I think that voting should be restricted to people with at least a token understanding of politics which would probably eliminate at least one-third and maybe as much as half.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Uncle Moneybags:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So let me understand where you and Mr. Keyes are coming from. You both want the State Legislatures to determine the members of Congress, instead of the people.
You and Mr Keyes are scarey individuals. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chainsaw <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The U.S. is supposed to be a representative republic. I don't believe that Phaedrus said or even implied that the people shouldn't be the ones voting for the House. We have to remember that the House is only half of Congress.
I'm not a huge fan of this type of government but I see the Founding Father's point in removing the people from as many decisions as possible. Personally, I think that voting should be restricted to people with at least a token understanding of politics which would probably eliminate at least one-third and maybe as much as half. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You state that , and I quote " Voting should be restricted to people with at least a token understanding of politics which would eliminate at least one third and maybe as much as half"
Now that you said that I want you to be in charge of determining who gets to vote and who does not get to vote.
I smell ANARCHY.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So let me understand where you and Mr. Keyes are coming from. You both want the State Legislatures to determine the members of Congress, instead of the people.
You and Mr Keyes are scarey individuals. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chainsaw <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The U.S. is supposed to be a representative republic. I don't believe that Phaedrus said or even implied that the people shouldn't be the ones voting for the House. We have to remember that the House is only half of Congress.
I'm not a huge fan of this type of government but I see the Founding Father's point in removing the people from as many decisions as possible. Personally, I think that voting should be restricted to people with at least a token understanding of politics which would probably eliminate at least one-third and maybe as much as half. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You state that , and I quote " Voting should be restricted to people with at least a token understanding of politics which would eliminate at least one third and maybe as much as half"
Now that you said that I want you to be in charge of determining who gets to vote and who does not get to vote.
I smell ANARCHY.
Sonny2003.
If you look around this forum, I'm pretty sure it would be safe to say I am a person who has a demonstrated animosity towards centralised federal power. You seem to think that removing popular elections of the Senate woud have this effect, but you are wrong -- it is removing the power of state legislatures and governors to appoint their Senators in the name of "increased democracy" that helped contribute to the massive swell of the federal government during the 1910's. Between the elimination of states' rights under the 17th, the inception of the income tax and Federal reserve, and the measures taken by our government to prop up Britain's economy during WWI (as well as those measures which taken in the aftermath of WWI to the same end) the federal power grab in that period could be fairly characterised as even more dramatic and extreme than that which occured under Lincoln. Nearly all of the legislation from that period should be abolished, including the Federal Reserve Act, and the 16th and 17th Amendments (income tax and end of state sovereignty, respectively.)
Phaedrus
If you look around this forum, I'm pretty sure it would be safe to say I am a person who has a demonstrated animosity towards centralised federal power. You seem to think that removing popular elections of the Senate woud have this effect, but you are wrong -- it is removing the power of state legislatures and governors to appoint their Senators in the name of "increased democracy" that helped contribute to the massive swell of the federal government during the 1910's. Between the elimination of states' rights under the 17th, the inception of the income tax and Federal reserve, and the measures taken by our government to prop up Britain's economy during WWI (as well as those measures which taken in the aftermath of WWI to the same end) the federal power grab in that period could be fairly characterised as even more dramatic and extreme than that which occured under Lincoln. Nearly all of the legislation from that period should be abolished, including the Federal Reserve Act, and the 16th and 17th Amendments (income tax and end of state sovereignty, respectively.)
Phaedrus
Phaedrus
Wouldn't it be fair to say that with the times comes a different mentality and if state legislators were give the power to choose those to represent their state as a Republic that all the Federal Pork Barrel spending would rise, rather than fall?
I know Minnesota would love to develop a eucalyptus with rainbow leaves.
Wouldn't it be fair to say that with the times comes a different mentality and if state legislators were give the power to choose those to represent their state as a Republic that all the Federal Pork Barrel spending would rise, rather than fall?
I know Minnesota would love to develop a eucalyptus with rainbow leaves.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sonny2003.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Uncle Moneybags:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So let me understand where you and Mr. Keyes are coming from. You both want the State Legislatures to determine the members of Congress, instead of the people.
You and Mr Keyes are scarey individuals. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chainsaw <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The U.S. is supposed to be a representative republic. I don't believe that Phaedrus said or even implied that the people shouldn't be the ones voting for the House. We have to remember that the House is only half of Congress.
I'm not a huge fan of this type of government but I see the Founding Father's point in removing the people from as many decisions as possible. Personally, I think that voting should be restricted to people with at least a token understanding of politics which would probably eliminate at least one-third and maybe as much as half. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You state that , and I quote " Voting should be restricted to people with at least a token understanding of politics which would eliminate at least one third and maybe as much as half"
Now that you said that I want you to be in charge of determining who gets to vote and who does not get to vote.
I smell ANARCHY. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Uncle Moneybags:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So let me understand where you and Mr. Keyes are coming from. You both want the State Legislatures to determine the members of Congress, instead of the people.
You and Mr Keyes are scarey individuals. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!! Chainsaw <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The U.S. is supposed to be a representative republic. I don't believe that Phaedrus said or even implied that the people shouldn't be the ones voting for the House. We have to remember that the House is only half of Congress.
I'm not a huge fan of this type of government but I see the Founding Father's point in removing the people from as many decisions as possible. Personally, I think that voting should be restricted to people with at least a token understanding of politics which would probably eliminate at least one-third and maybe as much as half. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You state that , and I quote " Voting should be restricted to people with at least a token understanding of politics which would eliminate at least one third and maybe as much as half"
Now that you said that I want you to be in charge of determining who gets to vote and who does not get to vote.
I smell ANARCHY. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
poopsocle
I see what you're saying, but it's hard for me to imagine a bigger incentive to ride the pork barrel than an upcoming election.
Seante appointments, which were somewhat similar to "cabinet positions" for the governor of the respective state, gave a live line to the federal government from the legislature of each state. That line was severed by the 17th Amendment, and replaced with the same bread and circus routine used to keep the HoR going. If you're going to have a government, it's important for people to have a voice in it, but the mob rule that was put in place by the 17th Amendment hardly helped -- it just grossly inflated the power of the federal government by detaching any sort of reason or intelligence from the process of populating the Senate. As I said above, most of the legislation in the 1910's was geared towards massively increasing federal power, and most of it should be scrapped .
Phaedrus
I see what you're saying, but it's hard for me to imagine a bigger incentive to ride the pork barrel than an upcoming election.
Seante appointments, which were somewhat similar to "cabinet positions" for the governor of the respective state, gave a live line to the federal government from the legislature of each state. That line was severed by the 17th Amendment, and replaced with the same bread and circus routine used to keep the HoR going. If you're going to have a government, it's important for people to have a voice in it, but the mob rule that was put in place by the 17th Amendment hardly helped -- it just grossly inflated the power of the federal government by detaching any sort of reason or intelligence from the process of populating the Senate. As I said above, most of the legislation in the 1910's was geared towards massively increasing federal power, and most of it should be scrapped .
Phaedrus
