Who supports the 17th amendment

I'm torn on this kind of issue to be honest. I loved the concept of Mr. Smith goes to Washington. Someone appointed that can actually try and do the right thing that doesn't have to worry about electability and fundraising... but with the snake pit that D.C. happens to be... the movie results would be the G rated version of what would happen now-a-days.

I'd rather have the appointments be Randomized than appointed or elected based on minimum qualifications... like a Jury Pool sometimes. You get someone that passes the BAR or w/e for their state, and they have a chance to be pulled for public service. Something to get corruption out of the political scene.

-TTB

Most people seem to support it, as do I.

The 17th amendment destroyed the balance of power in the United States and made the States completely subservient to the Federal Government.

Along with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax Act. the trio of these laws made the once free United States of America into the Fascist corporation of the US.

You are no longer free people and have no self determination whatsoever. You live a lie, and the majority of you are far to ignorant to even realize that fact.

jdog said:

The 17th amendment destroyed the balance of power in the United States and made the States completely subservient to the Federal Government.

Along with the creation of the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax Act. the trio of these laws made the once free United States of America into the Fascist corporation of the US.

You are no longer free people and have no self determination whatsoever. You live a lie, and the majority of you are far to ignorant to even realize that fact.

Click to expand...

Get over it. If you let it work on you you'll be bombing federal buildings somewhere.

blueliner7 said:

You didn't answer my question. Why 6 years for Senators and only 2 for House members?

Click to expand...

To be honest, I wish elections were always on Presidential years and that House members had 4 year terms. The money needed now corrupts the House, all they do is fund raise.

blueliner7 said:

Still not an answer. Why not every 2 years for all Senators? If it's all about the people and all that jazz.

Click to expand...

Since nobody seems to be answering this simple question, I'll do it. Senators are supposed to be farther removed from the whims of the populace, so they have longer terms to avoid having to constantly fundraise or seek the immediate approval of the voters in their district. Being a bit above the populist fray doesn't mean that Senators shouldn't be directly elected though; having Senators be the creatures of their state legislatures bred corruption and weakness in the Senate itself. Six-year terms in particular allow a third of the Senate to come up for election each two-year federal election cycle. Personally, I think the 17th Amendment was long overdue and should have been included in the Constitution from the beginning.

Grand Mal said:

Get over it. If you let it work on you you'll be bombing federal buildings somewhere.

Click to expand...

Get over it? That is why we are no longer a free country, it is not the fault of the people who took our freedoms, it is the fault of people who were not willing to stand up for them. People get the government they deserve.

jdog said:

Get over it? That is why we are no longer a free country, it is not the fault of the people who took our freedoms, it is the fault of people who were not willing to stand up for them. People get the government they deserve.

Click to expand...

If you think the US isn't a free country, you need to travel a bit. Seriously, we're one of the freest countries on the planet. This type of hyperbole helps no one and makes us look like whiny brats who don't know how good we have it.

"People get the government they deserve."

Unfortunately, untrue, The United States has the best government money can buy, even more so since the Citizens United ruling. Even before that, but especially since, We have become the United Corporations of America.

RationalPolicy said:

If you think the US isn't a free country, you need to travel a bit. Seriously, we're one of the freest countries on the planet. This type of hyperbole helps no one and makes us look like whiny brats who don't know how good we have it.

Click to expand...

I have traveled worldwide, and I can tell you that there are many places where the people have more freedom in their day to day lives than the people in the US. No one cares about freedom in the US anymore, we have become a society of whores who are more than willing the sacrifice freedom for material goods. Yes, we have more money and crap than most people in the world, but we sacrifice our freedoms in every way to live our prostitute lifestyles.

Bottom line is that anyone who supports the 17th amendment is a moron who has no understanding of the reasons the Constitutional government was constructed the way it was.

jdog said:

I have traveled worldwide, and I can tell you that there are many places where the people have more freedom in their day to day lives than the people in the US. No one cares about freedom in the US anymore, we have become a society of whores who are more than willing the sacrifice freedom for material goods. Yes, we have more money and crap than most people in the world, but we sacrifice our freedoms in every way to live our prostitute lifestyles.

Click to expand...

What countries would those be? Most libertarian types (not me) who value freedom above all else would contend that Western European nations are less free than we are as Americans, as those nations force everyone into government-mandated healthcare and education systems, tax citizens at far higher rates, value individuality less, make public religious expression more difficult or even illegal, and restrict speech far more than the US does. Obviously non-democratic regimes aren't as free as the US is given that the people don't truly have a voice in their own governance. So which non-US nations would you actually contend are more free than we are?

RationalPolicy said:

What countries would those be? Most libertarian types (not me) who value freedom above all else would contend that Western European nations are less free than we are as Americans, as those nations force everyone into government-mandated healthcare and education systems, tax citizens at far higher rates, value individuality less, make public religious expression more difficult or even illegal, and restrict speech far more than the US does. Obviously non-democratic regimes aren't as free as the US is given that the people don't truly have a voice in their own governance. So which non-US nations would you actually contend are more free than we are?

Click to expand...

If you really believe you have a voice in your own governance you are deeply delusional. The Deep State decides who you will choose... either their candidate A or there candidate B. It does not matter whom you choose as they own both sides.
You have NO freedom left in the US beyond what the Deep State deceives you into thinking you have.

NIMBY said:

Because GOPs control over 30 state legislatures and would be able to appoint up to 70 Senators ...

Click to expand...

They can gerrymander the district lines, but not the state lines, and that's the bottom line.

All of our representatives should be democratically elected by those they are supposed to serve.

jdog said:

If you really believe you have a voice in your own governance you are deeply delusional. The Deep State decides who you will choose... either their candidate A or there candidate B. It does not matter whom you choose as they own both sides.
You have NO freedom left in the US beyond what the Deep State deceives you into thinking you have.

Click to expand...

Which country is better?

When did this "deep state" emerge?

Who and what is the "deep state"?

If Trump/Bannon/InfoWars were aware of the "deep state", why weren't they prepared to deal with it? Trump had zero appointments ready when he was elected, and his government is have vacant or worse, yet his supporters whine that the government is controlled by Obama droids.

Unitedwestand13 said:

The direct election senators.... why is this so controversial now?

Click to expand...

The entire state of Wyoming has a smaller population than just the city of Washington DC. DC has no senators at all. The state of California has a population more than 10 times greater than Wyoming yet they have the same representation in the Senate.

While I understand putting in place some protections for more rural states the reality is that this runs very contrary to democracy and makes it harder for more populous states to have their say. You have so many young educated intelligent people bailing on these more rural states in favor of the more liberal coastal states and cities, but when they do their vote becomes less valuable meanwhile the vote of those less educated people who never leave their small hometown becomes greater. I realize many rural midwesterners don't like to admit that brain drain is a thing, but how great could these rural states really be if they're populations are receding like that? If people are fleeing these states for better ones why are we still letting those low population states have equal say?

200 years ago the concept of states rights made a lot more sense. The technology of the time made it very difficult for information and goods to travel from state to state. The result is that it was very important for states to be more autonomous so they could make their own decisions and each state needed a bit more authority to overrule decisions made by the rest of the country even if they were outnumbered radically. But at this point you've got around 75% of the population of the country living in only 25 states with only 25% of the population occupying the other half. That makes a midwestern vote significantly more valueable than a coastal vote, and there's no rational reason for it.

At a minimum, we need to find a way to improve the balance here. Nobody is suggesting we make Wyoming irrelevant, but they should not have the same say in the direction of this country as New York, Florida, California, or Texas who all have massive populations.

Unitedwestand13 said:

The text of the this particular amendment.



The direct election senators.... why is this so controversial now?

Click to expand...

I don't. The original intent was that the interested parties, the feds, the states, and the people, all had representation. The 17th eliminated state representation and created a redundant branch of government. Congress is now expected to represent both state and the people. Twice. The feds jumped from a third to half the power overnight.

jimbo said:

I don't. The original intent was that the interested parties, the feds, the states, and the people, all had representation. The 17th eliminated state representation and created a redundant branch of government. Congress is now expected to represent both state and the people. Twice. The feds jumped from a third to half the power overnight.

Click to expand...

The original intent was that the constitution could be tweaked by the process of amendment. That's what happened. The 1st sentence in #64 explains why I think it's a good thing.

Do you think the "original intent" was that a government in power should be able to choose its voters in a way that keeps them in power in perpetuity?

Congress is "the swamp". We all hate it as a whole, but most people seem to like their personal rodent rep. That's what happens when they are allowed to choose who votes for them.

<alt>doxygen said:

The original intent was that the constitution could be tweaked by the process of amendment. That's what happened. The 1st sentence in #64 explains why I think it's a good thing.

Do you think the "original intent" was that a government in power should be able to choose its voters in a way that keeps them in power in perpetuity?

Congress is "the swamp". We all hate it as a whole, but most people seem to like their personal rodent rep. That's what happens when they are allowed to choose who votes for them.

Click to expand...

Gerrymandering is a different issue. You're correct, amending is the proper process. Pen and phone seems to be the norm. But that too is a different issue.

If there was no longer a need for states to have representation, it seems to me the correct action would be to abolish the Senate. But no power group will ever vote to abolish themselves.

Now it takes two votes to pass a law, and one for the executive to shoot it down.

jimbo said:

Gerrymandering is a different issue. You're correct, amending is the proper process. Pen and phone seems to be the norm. But that too is a different issue.

If there was no longer a need for states to have representation, it seems to me the correct action would be to abolish the Senate. But no power group will ever vote to abolish themselves.

Now it takes two votes to pass a law, and one for the executive to shoot it down.

Click to expand...

If gerrymandering was done away with, I could possibly stomach revoking the 17th (need to think about it a bit more...).

Right now the senate is the only body that is elected by the entire state. The house is a bag of nuts that represent the worst extremes of both parties. I don't want that insanity passed to the senate. Things are bad enough...

jdog said:

If you really believe you have a voice in your own governance you are deeply delusional. The Deep State decides who you will choose... either their candidate A or there candidate B. It does not matter whom you choose as they own both sides.
You have NO freedom left in the US beyond what the Deep State deceives you into thinking you have.

Click to expand...

We have a representative system of governance, so I don't expect to have a voice in the day-to-day decisions of my federal representatives. We elect our representatives and senators to make decisions for us on a large scale. The way to change our representation if we decide that we don't like what they are doing is to vote them out of office; trying to influence our representatives is not really something that works nearly as well as just voting consistently. I also don't believe that the two-party system puts up the best possible candidates, as it leaves out many people who would likely be excellent representatives but who do not kowtow to every single party platform position.

Still, your thought that the "Deep State" chooses our candidates and decides our elections is foolhardy. Do you really think the so-called "Deep State" chose Donald J. Trump to be our 45th President? Seriously? And as for lacking freedom, there are very few nations that allow their citizenry to purchase powerful firearms with little in the way of regulations besides background checks. One would presume that an all-powerful "Deep State" would simply confiscate the arms that are floating around in the US, or wouldn't have allowed that proliferation to happen in the first place. Conspiratorial thinking like this falls apart under even slightly rigorous examination, as you have to keep doubling down on the conspiracy to have it continue to make any sort of logical sense. The fact that you have the freedom to post online that there is a "Deep State" belies the concept entirely. In places where there is an actual "Deep State" or government that is fundamentally anti-freedom (like China), you wouldn't even be able to post this online. This absurdist rhetoric just makes Americans look stupid, uninformed, and, frankly, like a bunch of rubes.

I guarantee you this much:
If the Republicans get to continue their alt-Right trifecta control of all three branches of government this November, you might see the day come where the 17A is repealed. In fact, you might just see a Constitutional Convention, and I guarantee you that the BILLIONAIRE CLASS will be the ones writing the new Constitution, and their pens will be guided by wealthy theocrats.
The billionaire class is immune to theocracies, and seeing as they hate democracy, theocracy is just fine by them.
It allows them to be even more above the law than they are right now, because it allows them to act as if they are indeed "gods walking the Earth".

<alt>doxygen said:

If gerrymandering was done away with, I could possibly stomach revoking the 17th (need to think about it a bit more...).

Right now the senate is the only body that is elected by the entire state. The house is a bag of nuts that represent the worst extremes of both parties. I don't want that insanity passed to the senate. Things are bad enough...

Click to expand...

Like I said, gerrymandering is a separate issue. We're talking about the 17th.

If we changed Congress or the Constitution, the details would have to be worked out. Hopefully by not repeating past mistakes.

jimbo said:

Like I said, gerrymandering is a separate issue. We're talking about the 17th.

If we changed Congress or the Constitution, the details would have to be worked out. Hopefully by not repeating past mistakes.

Click to expand...

Agreed. My point, and the reason I voted the way I did, is that until gerrymandering is really fixed, I would not support doing away with the 17th. That would put "my vote" for senator in the hands of a rep who is basically picked by the dominant party in my state. I like that voters across an entire states choose senators.

<alt>doxygen said:

Which country is better?

When did this "deep state" emerge?

Who and what is the "deep state"?

If Trump/Bannon/InfoWars were aware of the "deep state", why weren't they prepared to deal with it? Trump had zero appointments ready when he was elected, and his government is have vacant or worse, yet his supporters whine that the government is controlled by Obama droids.

Click to expand...

Stupid questions.

The Deep State has existed in some form as long as the country has existed, but it did not become more powerful than the government until 1913. It has become increasingly more powerful as time has gone by.

Banking, Wall St., & Industrial, monopolies, along with the Military Industrial Complex.