How desperate can you get?

[jasmin]

Lefties want you to believe that repealing the 17th amendment would 'strip you of your rights". The reality is something different.

Prior to passage in 1913, senators were appointed by the state legislature instead of being elected. Scalia made statements a year ago indicating that states rights declined as a result.

Now, I have not taken the time to examine Scalia's view or exactly how states' rights have been diminished. However, I also don't get caught up in the left-wing, media driven nutiness that wants to act like Perry is some dictator for suggesting repeal of amendments. Unlike Obama, he has not indicated he would take this action by fiat, circumventing the established processes. I think any of these kinds of decisions are worthy of discussion and debate. Interesting that Perry also wants to end lifetime appointments for Federal judges because they are no longer accountable to the people, which seems in opposition to his views on election of senators.

Perry's comments on the "progressive" period:
I happen to think that the Progressive movement was the beginning of the deterioration of our Constitution from the standpoint of it being abused and misused to do things that Congress wanted to do, and/or the Supreme Court wanted to implement. The New Deal was the launching pad for the Washington largesse as we know it today.

And, when asked specifically if he would support repeal of the 17th amendment, a tea party platform item, he said:
Here’s what I think. We need to get the spending under control before we start... This is kind of like, deliver my mail on time, preferably on Saturdays, defend the border before you come down here and start telling us how to do all these other things. The base responsibilities... If the federal government would just take care of the base responsibilities the Constitution calls for then we might have a bit more progressive conversation about the federal government getting involved in a whole lot of other things. But for me, that’s what people are really upset about. We’ve got a border with Mexico that’s not secure today. We had another Texas citizen killed yesterday in Juarez. Americans are looking at that and going, Why are you trying to tell us how to educate our children, how to deliver health care, how to do this myriad of things, you know, what kind of cars we can drive, what kind of lightbulbs we can have in our house, when you’re not even taking care of your basic responsibilities. And so I kind of put the repeal of the 17th Amendment in the, you know... It’s important to have that conversation, but relative to the spending, it’s secondary.

So you might want to learn facts and substance before you start tarring and feathering the guy, and listen to a little more than the latest headline on Kos or Huffpo.

 

[jasmin]

More on the 17th amendment, from a George Mason University law professor. Of course those of you who prefer media soundbites to any substanative discussion can skip reading it.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/11/repealing-the-17th-amendment
Over at National Review, George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki makes the case for repealing the 17th Amendment and its direct election of U.S. senators:

The Constitution did not create a direct democracy; it established a constitutional republic. Its goal was to preserve liberty, not to maximize popular sovereignty. To this end, the Framers provided that the power of various political actors would derive from different sources. While House members were to be elected directly by the people, the president would be elected by the Electoral College. The people would have no direct influence on the selection of judges, who would be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to serve for life or “during good behavior.” And senators would be elected by state legislatures.

Empowering state legislatures to elect senators was considered both good politics and good constitutional design....

The Seventeenth Amendment ended all that, bringing about the master-servant relationship between the federal and state governments that the original constitutional design sought to prevent.

Read the whole thing here. Fox host Judge Andrew Napolitano made the case for repealing the 17th Amendment to me earlier this year.


For those of you who like to think, if we passed the 17th amendment in 1913 to support a 'populist' agenda, why are we still stuck with the electoral college all these years later?

 

[Bubble Burster]

Lefties want you to believe that repealing the 17th amendment would 'strip you of your rights". The reality is something different.

Prior to passage in 1913, senators were appointed by the state legislature instead of being elected. Scalia made statements a year ago indicating that states rights declined as a result.

Now, I have not taken the time to examine Scalia's view or exactly how states' rights have been diminished. However, I also don't get caught up in the left-wing, media driven nutiness that wants to act like Perry is some dictator for suggesting repeal of amendments. Unlike Obama, he has not indicated he would take this action by fiat, circumventing the established processes. I think any of these kinds of decisions are worthy of discussion and debate. Interesting that Perry also wants to end lifetime appointments for Federal judges because they are no longer accountable to the people, which seems in opposition to his views on election of senators.

Perry's comments on the "progressive" period:
I happen to think that the Progressive movement was the beginning of the deterioration of our Constitution from the standpoint of it being abused and misused to do things that Congress wanted to do, and/or the Supreme Court wanted to implement. The New Deal was the launching pad for the Washington largesse as we know it today.

And, when asked specifically if he would support repeal of the 17th amendment, a tea party platform item, he said:
Here’s what I think. We need to get the spending under control before we start... This is kind of like, deliver my mail on time, preferably on Saturdays, defend the border before you come down here and start telling us how to do all these other things. The base responsibilities... If the federal government would just take care of the base responsibilities the Constitution calls for then we might have a bit more progressive conversation about the federal government getting involved in a whole lot of other things. But for me, that’s what people are really upset about. We’ve got a border with Mexico that’s not secure today. We had another Texas citizen killed yesterday in Juarez. Americans are looking at that and going, Why are you trying to tell us how to educate our children, how to deliver health care, how to do this myriad of things, you know, what kind of cars we can drive, what kind of lightbulbs we can have in our house, when you’re not even taking care of your basic responsibilities. And so I kind of put the repeal of the 17th Amendment in the, you know... It’s important to have that conversation, but relative to the spending, it’s secondary.

So you might want to learn facts and substance before you start tarring and feathering the guy, and listen to a little more than the latest headline on Kos or Huffpo.

ON THE MONEY!!

 

[jasmin]

More from the full article. A very interesting article, far from the media cries of 'he wants to take away people's rights!'

The Seventeenth Amendment ended all that, bringing about the master-servant relationship between the federal and state governments that the original constitutional design sought to prevent. Before the Seventeenth Amendment, the now-widespread Washington practice of commandeering the states for federal ends — through such actions as “unfunded mandates,” laws requiring states to implement voter-registration policies that enable fraud (such as the “Motor Voter” law signed by Bill Clinton), and the provisions of Obamacare that override state policy decisions — would have been unthinkable. Instead, senators today act all but identically to House members, treating federalism as a matter of political expediency rather than constitutional principle.

Under the original arrangement, senators had strong incentives to protect federalism. They recognized that their reelection depended on pleasing state legislators who preferred that power be kept close to home. Whereas House members were considered representatives of the people, senators were considered ambassadors of their state governments to the federal government and, like national ambassadors to foreign countries, were subject to instruction by the parties they represented (although not to recall if they refused to follow instructions). And they tended to act accordingly, ceding to the national government only the power necessary to perform its enumerated functions, such as fighting wars and building interstate infrastructure. Moreover, when the federal government expanded to address a crisis (such as war), it quickly retreated to its intended modest level after the crisis had passed.

Just as important as its role in securing federalism, the Senate as originally conceived was essential to the system of separation of powers. Bicameralism — the division of the legislature into two houses elected by different constituencies — was designed to frustrate special-interest factions. Madison noted in Federalist 62 that basing the House and Senate on different constituent foundations would provide an “additional impediment . . . against improper acts of legislation” by requiring the concurrence of a majority of the people with a majority of the state governments before a law could enacted. By resting both houses of Congress on the same constituency base — the people — the Seventeenth Amendment substantially watered down bicameralism as a check on interest-group rent-seeking, laying the foundation for the modern special-interest state.

Finally, the Framers hoped that indirect election of senators would elevate the quality of the Senate, making it a sort of American version of the House of Lords, by bringing to public service men of supreme accomplishment in business, law, and military affairs. There is some evidence that the indirectly elected Senate was more accessible to non-career politicians than today’s version is.

And of interest to the left:
Indeed, certain of the Senate’s duties — such as its role as a type of jury for impeachment proceedings — make sense only if it is somewhat insulated from the public’s passions of the moment, as was well demonstrated by the farcical Senate trial of Bill Clinton.

 

[Vagitarian]

You've been reading too much Glen Beck gibberish.

Our state legislature is freely elected, two tears later our U. S. Senators are freely elected. We don't elect the state legislature so they can decide who represents us in Washington, we elect them to decide what happens in the state. We have the freedon to elect state legislators as well as the Senators who represent us in the United States Congress and you're trying to justify stripping us of our freedom for political cause. Shame on you.

 

[jasmin]

You've been reading too much Glen Beck gibberish.

Our state legislature is freely elected, two tears later our U. S. Senators are freely elected. We don't elect the state legislature so they can decide who represents us in Washington, we elect them to decide what happens in the state. We have the freedon to elect state legislators as well as the Senators who represent us in the United States Congress and you're trying to justify stripping us of our freedom for political cause. Shame on you.

Damn, you're an idiot. Glen Beck? Read the article I attached. Take your time because I know it is beyond your normal ability to think. I'm not sure I would support repeal but the article gives some real insight into rationale far beyond your immature parrotting of media headlines.

 

[Bubble Burster]

More from the full article. A very interesting article, far from the media cries of 'he wants to take away people's rights!'

The Seventeenth Amendment ended all that, bringing about the master-servant relationship between the federal and state governments that the original constitutional design sought to prevent. Before the Seventeenth Amendment, the now-widespread Washington practice of commandeering the states for federal ends — through such actions as “unfunded mandates,” laws requiring states to implement voter-registration policies that enable fraud (such as the “Motor Voter” law signed by Bill Clinton), and the provisions of Obamacare that override state policy decisions — would have been unthinkable. Instead, senators today act all but identically to House members, treating federalism as a matter of political expediency rather than constitutional principle.

Under the original arrangement, senators had strong incentives to protect federalism. They recognized that their reelection depended on pleasing state legislators who preferred that power be kept close to home. Whereas House members were considered representatives of the people, senators were considered ambassadors of their state governments to the federal government and, like national ambassadors to foreign countries, were subject to instruction by the parties they represented (although not to recall if they refused to follow instructions). And they tended to act accordingly, ceding to the national government only the power necessary to perform its enumerated functions, such as fighting wars and building interstate infrastructure. Moreover, when the federal government expanded to address a crisis (such as war), it quickly retreated to its intended modest level after the crisis had passed.

Just as important as its role in securing federalism, the Senate as originally conceived was essential to the system of separation of powers. Bicameralism — the division of the legislature into two houses elected by different constituencies — was designed to frustrate special-interest factions. Madison noted in Federalist 62 that basing the House and Senate on different constituent foundations would provide an “additional impediment . . . against improper acts of legislation” by requiring the concurrence of a majority of the people with a majority of the state governments before a law could enacted. By resting both houses of Congress on the same constituency base — the people — the Seventeenth Amendment substantially watered down bicameralism as a check on interest-group rent-seeking, laying the foundation for the modern special-interest state.

Finally, the Framers hoped that indirect election of senators would elevate the quality of the Senate, making it a sort of American version of the House of Lords, by bringing to public service men of supreme accomplishment in business, law, and military affairs. There is some evidence that the indirectly elected Senate was more accessible to non-career politicians than today’s version is.

And of interest to the left:
Indeed, certain of the Senate’s duties — such as its role as a type of jury for impeachment proceedings — make sense only if it is somewhat insulated from the public’s passions of the moment, as was well demonstrated by the farcical Senate trial of Bill Clinton.

There is a two word reason why Clnton wasn't convicted: HEIDI FLEISS.

 

[Bubble Burster]

Baloney! My how people develop faded memories. New Orleans was caught flatfooted although it was not the fault of the president, it was either the governor of LA or the mayor of NO. Bush's misjudgement was his lack of interest or sincerity when he by passed the tragedy and did NOT end his vacation.

What Bush understood and Obama doesn't is that a Presidential visit can be hugely disruptive. Every time OBlahblah flew to Louisiana (on the way to Hawaii), all cleanup work stopped for at least one day.

Bush understood that he shouldn't do that. That's the difference between a political neophyte and a seasoned veteran.