• 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!

Repeal the 17th Amendment?

supremeLaw said:
Why, it’s not a democracy. People didn’t create the federal government, the states did. It would be strange that the entities which created the federal govmenent wouldn’t be represented .
Click to expand...

The states may have been sovereign powers at the time of independence, but the lost sovereignty when the ratified the US Constitution

Of course the USA is a democracy, specifically, it's a representative democracy.

You elected representatives at a federal and state level.
 
Rich2018 said:
The states may have been sovereign powers at the time of independence, but the lost sovereignty when the ratified the US Constitution

Of course the USA is a democracy, specifically, it's a representative democracy.

You elected representatives at a federal and state level.
Click to expand...


You’re mistaken. It’s a republic. If it was a democracy 51% could vote on anything and impose it on the other 49%. This was specifically avoided. But it’s always nice to remind people about this wonderful point.
 
Rich2018 said:
You should learn how to use the quote feature on an internet forum

The states do not have an obligation to hold the federal government accountable - that duty is shared between Congress and the Supreme Court
And yes I know that the Constitution deems them as part of the government, but they're not. Especially the SC (indeed the whole judiciary should not be regarded as part of the government but be regarded as 100% separate from it)

Indeed the states have no meeting ground, no forum.
They only have an interest for within their own borders.

So yes if the federal government passed a law that only white people can vote, any state could oppose it as it affects people ***IN*** their state
But say Florida couldn't oppose a law prohibiting mining in Alaska.




So there is no policy area, no government department, not within the remit of either house to investigate ?


What was the revenue concern for the House Committee on Un-American Activities ?




They can elect another senator come election day - that is democracy in action
Actually I think 6 years is too long, it should be 4 years, as I believe the term length of the House should be.
Click to expand...

Rich, I wonder where you get your information, you made the statement that the "States have no meeting ground, no forum" , well Rich, that meeting ground is the United States Senate the forum is the Senators.
 
supremeLaw said:
You’re mistaken. It’s a republic. If it was a democracy 51% could vote on anything and impose it on the other 49%. This was specifically avoided. But it’s always nice to remind people about this wonderful point.
Click to expand...

That's like saying you don't have a four-wheel drive car, you have a blue car.

You can be a Republic (actually a Constitutional Republic) and a Democracy

And in the US Constitutional Republic, President Trump was imposed on us by less than 49%

For a vote to be carried in either house of Congress it just needs a simple majority.
 
Terryj said:
Rich, I wonder where you get your information, you made the statement that the "States have no meeting ground, no forum" , well Rich, that meeting ground is the United States Senate the forum is the Senators.
Click to expand...

No, that US Senate is not a meeting ground of the states, it's a meeting ground of US Senators, who represent the people from their respective states, not the states themselves.
 
Rich2018 said:
That's like saying you don't have a four-wheel drive car, you have a blue car.

You can be a Republic (actually a Constitutional Republic) and a Democracy

And in the US Constitutional Republic, President Trump was imposed on us by less than 49%

For a vote to be carried in either house of Congress it just needs a simple majority.
Click to expand...

You’re right. We are a constitutional republic. Exactly correct. Not a democracy. I’m so glad we could agree. We should discuss something else.
 
Rich2018 said:
Oh please, a Constitutional Republic, like a Constitutional Monarchy, ***IS*** a democracy
Click to expand...

Oh please. It's not. And the US is a representative republic. In a democracy everybody votes on everything. In the the US not one democratic election has ever been held. Our representatives do that for us.

To the question? Either the Senate should revert back to representing the states or it should be abolished. There is no reason for the nation to have two very expensive redundant groups representing the people.
 
supremeLaw said:
You’re right. We are a constitutional republic. Exactly correct. Not a democracy. I’m so glad we could agree. We should discuss something else.
Click to expand...

I said a country can be a Republic AND a Democracy

If it is a Democracy, then it is a Constitutional Republic.
 
Rich2018 said:
If it is a Democracy, then it is a Constitutional Republic.
Click to expand...

Please explain this. If it’s a democracy then it’s a constitutional republic. Democracy and constitutional republic aren’t synonymous. This is confusing.
 
jimbo said:
Oh please. It's not. And the US is a representative republic....
Click to expand...


The USA is a Representative Democracy, which means that if it also a republic, it would be a Constitutional Republic (like the USA)
If it were a (representative) Democracy and a Monarchy, it would be a Constitutional Monarchy (like Canada)


In a democracy everybody votes on everything....
Click to expand...


No you're thinking of a Direct Democracy, which never existed in history (except at a small scale collective farm, workers collective factory or rock group etc) - it didn't really exist in ancient Greece either.

Democracy today is Representative Democracy, where the people elect politicians to represent them (important to note that they are representatives, not delegates)



In the the US not one democratic election has ever been held. Our representatives do that for us...
Click to expand...

That is because the USA is a Representative Democracy

And in actual fact, whilst the USA is not a direct democracy, it does actually exercise democratic votes (or plebiscites) more often than any other democracy, chiefly on non-political, single issue votes. eg: in my county a few years ago, the residents voted on whether the sale of alcohol on a Sunday should be allowed

And is not the selection of elected officials, including the president himself, not a democratic vote ?


Either the Senate should revert back to representing the states or it should be abolished. There is no reason for the nation to have two very expensive redundant groups representing the people.
Click to expand...


A good argument can be made for abolition, however the Senate does fulfill several duties and represents a leveling of opinion across the country.

On balance I would retain it as it is.
 
supremeLaw said:
Please explain this. If it’s a democracy then it’s a constitutional republic. Democracy and constitutional republic aren’t synonymous. This is confusing.
Click to expand...

Yes they are

Think of this, what would Canada (a Representative Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy) have to do to become a Republic ?

The answer is simply replace the Queen with and elected head of state and bingo, Canada is a Constitutional Republic instantly
Because all a Republic is, is a form of government where the head of state is chosen by election, not birthright.
 
Rich2018 said:
Yes they are

Think of this, what would Canada (a Representative Democracy and Constitutional Monarchy) have to do to become a Republic ?

The answer is simply replace the Queen with and elected head of state and bingo, Canada is a Constitutional Republic instantly
Because all a Republic is, is a form of government where the head of state is chosen by election, not birthright.
Click to expand...

Though I disagree with this post I gave you a like because you are polite and engaging. I do believe I’ve highjacked this post though and we are off topic. Would you care to continue this under a new post? I’ll comment more to you about the 17th amendment to keep us on topic here.
 
Rich2018 said:
The states may have been sovereign powers at the time of independence, but the lost sovereignty when the ratified the US Constitution
Click to expand...

The 17th amendment never removes any notion that the senate should no longer represent the state and its citizens. It only changed the way the state would send people to the senate.

And to speak so generally by saying sovereign powers makes it sound as though the 17th amendment negated a large portion of article one, and the last two amendments as part of the bill of rights. The 17th amendment does none of this.
 
supremeLaw said:
The 17th amendment never removes any notion that the senate should no longer represent the state and its citizens. It only changed the way the state would send people to the senate.

And to speak so generally by saying sovereign powers makes it sound as though the 17th amendment negated a large portion of article one, and the last two amendments as part of the bill of rights. The 17th amendment does none of this.
Click to expand...

First, the States never lost their sovereignty. The US falls under the "Dual Sovereignty Doctrine." As the Supreme Court explains in Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985):

The dual sovereignty doctrine provides that, when a defendant in a single act violates the "peace and dignity" of two sovereigns by breaking the laws of each, he has committed two distinct "offences" for double jeopardy purposes. In applying the doctrine, the crucial determination is whether the two entities that seek successively to prosecute a defendant for the same course of conduct can be termed separate sovereigns. This determination turns on whether the prosecuting entities' powers to undertake criminal prosecutions derive from separate and independent sources. It has been uniformly held that the States are separate sovereigns with respect to the Federal Government because each State's power to prosecute derives from its inherent sovereignty, preserved to it by the Tenth Amendment, and not from the Federal Government. Given the distinct sources of their powers to try a defendant, the States are no less sovereign with respect to each other than they are with respect to the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

Second, the Seventeenth Amendment took away the State legislature's representation and gave it to the people. The Senate was never intended to represent the people. That was the job of the House of Representatives. The Senate was created to represent the will of the State legislatures.

That last sentence is very important, because it was those very same State legislatures that ratified the Seventeenth Amendment and removed their representation and gave it to the people instead. It takes a great deal of corruption indeed to convince 75% of the State legislatures to voluntarily give up power granted to them by the US Constitution. It would take the very same 75% State legislatures to ratify a repeal to the Seventeenth Amendment, so I don't think you will be seeing it happening any time in the near future.
 
supremeLaw said:
You quoted the wrong person. I never said the states lost sovereignty
Click to expand...

True, you did not. It was my intent to correct the poster you responded to, in order to be certain that you were not misinformed. I also noticed that you did not respond to the poster's misinformed sovereignty statement. So I was uncertain whether you already knew about the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine or not.
 
Glitch said:
True, you did not. It was my intent to correct the poster you responded to, in order to be certain that you were not misinformed. I also noticed that you did not respond to the poster's misinformed sovereignty statement. So I was uncertain whether you already knew about the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine or not.
Click to expand...

I always appreciate additional quality information. Quote me anytime. I just wanted to know you correctly targeted the person with whom you intended to engage.
 
supremeLaw said:
Though I disagree with this post I gave you a like because you are polite and engaging. I do believe I’ve highjacked this post though and we are off topic. Would you care to continue this under a new post? I’ll comment more to you about the 17th amendment to keep us on topic here.
Click to expand...

Do you mean a thread on whether the USA is a democracy or a republic ?

Well I did actually start a thread on that topic once but it must have been deleted in a house keeping program.

Sure, we can have a debate on it, if you like.


The 17th amendment never removes any notion that the senate should no longer represent the state and its citizens. It only changed the way the state would send people to the senate.

And to speak so generally by saying sovereign powers makes it sound as though the 17th amendment negated a large portion of article one, and the last two amendments as part of the bill of rights. The 17th amendment does none of this.
Click to expand...


I would argue that the 17th amendment changed the senate's representation in the following way:

It ceased to represent the legislatures of the individual states and represented the people themselves.

States aren't represented as such, but rather the people within them.
 
Rich2018 said:
Do you mean a thread on whether the USA is a democracy or a republic ?

Well I did actually start a thread on that topic once but it must have been deleted in a house keeping program.

Sure, we can have a debate on it, if you like.





I would argue that the 17th amendment changed the senate's representation in the following way:

It ceased to represent the legislatures of the individual states and represented the people themselves.

States aren't represented as such, but rather the people within them.
Click to expand...

That’s too bad, I’d enjoy reading your thoughts explaining why you view the United States as a democracy. And since we don’t agree, a new topic would be enjoyable.


Your argument is a reasonable one that the 17th amendment changed the foundation of the legislature. That does not remove the sovereignty of a state. I believe those are separate issues, but I think we do agree the 17th amendment made a significant change.
 
Helix said:
I support more voter influence, not less. Step one is eliminating the Electoral College.
Click to expand...

Just what leftists want 2 states electing a president. The founders were are now and always will be smarter than you and they've been dead for hundreds of years.
 
Ignatius said:
Just what leftists want 2 states electing a president. The founders were are now and always will be smarter than you and they've been dead for hundreds of years.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would be crazy if we actually elected the president rather than giving the Republican minority another, "ok, he lost, but let's make him president anyway!"

No thanks. Every idiot they nominate is worse than the last one, and the EC didn't do its job to stop a madman. It's time for it to go.
 
Helix said:
Yeah, it would be crazy if we actually elected the president rather than giving the Republican minority another, "ok, he lost, but let's make him president anyway!"

No thanks. Every idiot they nominate is worse than the last one, and the EC didn't do its job to stop a madman. It's time for it to go.
Click to expand...

Look it's clear you aren't done stomping your feet. The American people dont need not be bullied by California and New York. The elctoral college is in place for precisely that reason. Had the cow hitlery won not a single moron would be looking to abolish the electoral college. Do you know why I respect terrorists more than any leftist than I have ever run across? Terrorists are honest enough to say they hate America and seek its destruction but you people are moral low lifes.
 
Ignatius said:
Look it's clear you aren't done stomping your feet. The American people dont need not be bullied by California and New York. The elctoral college is in place for precisely that reason. Had the cow hitlery won not a single moron who be looking to abolish the electoral college. Do you know why I respect terrorists more than any leftist than I have ever run across? Terrorists are honest enough to say they hate America and seek its destruction but you people are moral low lifes.
Click to expand...

I'm not stomping my feet. I don't support the EC anymore. It actually aided in electiing one of the most dangerously stupid fools to ever take a **** in the WH. Time for it to go. If the extreme right wants to win, get more votes.
 
Helix said:
I'm not stomping my feet. I don't support the EC anymore. It actually aided in electiing one of the most dangerously stupid fools to ever take a **** in the WH. Time for it to go. If the extreme right wants to win, get more votes.
Click to expand...

Of course you're stomping your feet. The ONLY reason you oppose it is because that idiot Clinton lost. Dont pretend you have some high minded ideals. We all know it's BS. The EC is in place so the majority can't bully everybody. That's far more important than your personal dislike for a president. You people can't think beyond the next 10 minutes. You are all for bullying until you're the one being bullied but leftists are so too stupid to realize that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom