• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who supports the 17th amendment

Do you support the 17th amendment

  • Total voters
    55
EMNofSeattle said:
Well, no most federal mandates are not about "individual rights" they're about special rights for certain voting classes.

Also most people have virtually no working knowledge of government, or are extremely self interested to the point of ignoring the larger picture. Which is why a legislative assembly who understands having to government and meet certain obligations can sometimes make a better decision then masses of self-interested people.
Click to expand...

Like those who wanted to maintain laws against same sex marriage? Who fought that the hardest, federal or state governments?

And those on the state level are just as self-interested as those at the federal level. There really is little difference between the two in most cases. Hell, my state legislature just had a group of legislators leave a whole portion of the legislature that they knew they didn't need to vote with them on a bill out of the budget planning altogether. They basically have said, "we don't care about the people you represent, we are going to only do what we feel is in our best interests right now". And my state was one which was already found guilty of gerrymandering elections for pretty much just this effect.
 
The problems in the senate have nothing to do with how they get there, but the rules the institution applies once they get there.
 
OpportunityCost said:
It took you over a month to post that.



The criteria are within the link posted earlier, please read it, I don't have time for your drive-by nonsense.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Can't post if I haven't been here and the only nonsense is you avoiding what multiple posters asked so the issues is yours.
 
LaylaWindu said:
Can't post if I haven't been here and the only nonsense is you avoiding what multiple posters asked so the issues is yours.
Click to expand...
No one asked but you, the rest were intelligent enough to just read the information at the link.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
 
I'll tell you why I LIKE the 17th Amendment. The original (unamended) constitution says the state legislature elects its senators. Fine. But how? Does the state senate alone get to do it? Or the lower house instead? (Nebraska is the only state where this distinction would not be a problem as its legislature is unicameral.)

And what of a disagreement between the state senate and the lower house when electing a senator? This is one the founding fathers didn't think through. New York cast no electoral votes in 1789 because the upper and lower house couldn't agree on them. The same could easily happen if we went back to appointing senators rather than directly electing them.

Therefore, the 17th was a good idea.
 
OpportunityCost said:
No one asked but you, the rest were intelligent enough to just read the information at the link.

Sent from my SM-S727VL using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So still avoiding? ok got it.
 
the 17th amendment took way the states power as the guardian of the constitution. as a guardian the states keep a check on federal power, to keep it within the delegated powers of article 1 section 8 of the constitution.

by creating the 17th we have moved towards more of a democratic form of government which the founders were opposed too, because democratic forms of government are unstable.

before the 17th amendment to the constitution, all laws were made in USA were the interest of the people ( the house) the state governments (the senate) and the union (president), this how the rights of the people and the powers of the states are both represented, because the house represented the people, while the senate represents the state governments because the senator was instructed by his state government how to vote

with the 17th, we have turned the senate into a democracy which it was never intended to be, causing the states to lose their voice in the federal government to protect their state powers from federal usurpation.

the problem with democracy it is unstable and people think its rule of the people, which is still not good government, however democracy is not truly rule of the people, it rule by oligarchy.

in direct or representative democracy all laws make are in the interest of a few, who are the few?, they special interest like men with wealth, corporations, foreign governments, who bride and promise something to those who will vote for those legislature bills the few desire.

this is why you hear today of people saying the government is bought and paid for, and the term of "Elites in Washington"

by eliminating the 17th we return power to the states governments, so they again can check federal powers, but also to end the lobbying in Washington, because the senators can no longer be bribed, they must vote as instructed by their state government.

with the 17th, 100 senators are in 1 central location to be lobbied by any special interest group.

without the 17th the special interest groups would have to lobby the 7000 people of the state legislatures over 50 states....a daunting task
 
I would like to eliminate the Senate entirely because it gives low population, rural, and Republican states an advantage over high population, urban, and Democrat states.

As long as we have a Senate I want it to be elected by the voters.

I want to reduce or eliminate the power of money in American politics, and make the government more democratic. A more democratic government would of course be a more Democrat government.
 
SmartCat said:
I would like to eliminate the Senate entirely because it gives low population, rural, and Republican states an advantage over high population, urban, and Democrat states.

As long as we have a Senate I want it to be elected by the voters.

I want to reduce or eliminate the power of money in American politics, and make the government more democratic. A more democratic government would of course be a more Democrat government.
Click to expand...

IT would also be violative of most rights.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Nonsense.
Click to expand...

lets do some thinking

if we had a true democracy would abortion have been legal in 1973
would sodomy bans be overturned
gay marriage?

I doubt you even considered those things that were court imposed against the popular will
 
TurtleDude said:
lets do some thinking

if we had a true democracy would abortion have been legal in 1973
would sodomy bans be overturned
gay marriage?

I doubt you even considered those things that were court imposed against the popular will
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you might think that issues like sodomy and abortion are big deals for me. They aren't.

Both were settled by the conservative Burger court.

Nor are we talking about true democracy. We're talking of the limited step of direct election of senators, a non-issue until very recently.

Why, all of a sudden, are we openly opposed to direct election of senators or even true democracy?

I believe it is Vladimir's will. I believe it is in America's best interest to lock Trump up.

JMHO.
 
Last edited:
Howard the Duck said:
I have no idea why you might think that issues like sodomy and abortion are big deals for me. They aren't.

Both were settled by the conservative Burger court.

Nor are we talking about true democracy. We're talking of the limited step of direct election of senators, a non-issue until very recently.

Why, all of a sudden, are we openly opposed to direct election of senators or even true democracy?

I believe it is Vladimir's will. I believe it is in America's best interest to lock Trump up.

JMHO.
Click to expand...

when someone opposes the original set up of our federal government-such as praising progressive nonsense like the 17th amendment-which made senators no longer truly representative of the states, I ask why
 
Never supported the Seventeeth Amendment. It ended up removing an important check and balance within Congress. It could have been tweaked to eliminate the associated with it. The idea was to give state governments an influence over federally passed legislation. Idealistically, the HoR was to represent the electorate with the Senate representing the states.
 
TurtleDude said:
IT would also be violative of most rights.
Click to expand...

Although my candidates often lose elections, I trust the majority of the voters more than I trust any minority, whether it be a minority based on wealth, birth, or intellect.
 
SmartCat said:
Although my candidates often lose elections, I trust the majority of the voters more than I trust any minority, whether it be a minority based on wealth, birth, or intellect.
Click to expand...

I don't. when more people can tell you who won last month's Survivor or American Idol than can name the justices on the USSC or their own two senators, I don't want pure democracy.
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't. when more people can tell you who won last month's Survivor or American Idol than can name the justices on the USSC or their own two senators, I don't want pure democracy.
Click to expand...

And yet it was your team that selected the unspeakably ill-suited Donald Trump president based on a misrepresented resume featuring his lead role on a canceled reality tv show.

Gotta love that electoral college, huh? There's your divinely inspired founding fathers in action!
 
Last edited:
PirateMk1 said:
You made yourself the part of the thread with your answer. See.

Turtledude post 134


Howard the Duck post 135


PirateMk1 post 139
Click to expand...

Expressing my opinion doesn't extend to you the right to change the topic to me. Notice how I expressed my opinion without personally attacking turtledude.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Expressing my opinion doesn't extend to you the right to change the topic to me. Notice how I expressed my opinion without personally attacking turtledude.
Click to expand...

Really? Your opinion is noted, and rejected.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Expressing my opinion doesn't extend to you the right to change the topic to me. Notice how I expressed my opinion without personally attacking turtledude.
Click to expand...

Good comment on TD. He’s good people, my friend, except on THE Issue with him in ‘public’.

Getting rid of the 17th amendment is part of the GOP Nazification of the U$$A.

They’ve stolen the potus; they’ve stolen the Federal Courts; now it’s time for them to FINISH stealing the Constitution from our Founding Forefathers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom