PDA

View Full Version : 17th Amendment Bad



NorwichGrad
06-04-2014, 01:15 PM
http://www.truthinexile.com/17th-amendment-bad-repeal-it/

NOVACommute
06-04-2014, 01:27 PM
That was a good read, thank you.
Unable to do the rep thing due to recent reps to you.

bustasinclair
06-04-2014, 01:39 PM
It would be difficult to refute this article, especially given the current state of affairs within Congress and the Senate.

Good read!

eomrat
06-04-2014, 01:57 PM
In before someone says you are in favor of slavery.

acrawlingchaos
06-04-2014, 02:43 PM
The answer to people failing to vote a recumbent out... is to repeal the 17th amendment and expect these same citizens to become directly involved with their State Administration?

theKurp
06-04-2014, 02:56 PM
If a senator started voting against the best interests of the state which he represented, he could be immediately recalled.

Who gets to decide what the best interests of the state are?

acrawlingchaos
06-04-2014, 03:02 PM
Who gets to decide what the best interests of the state are?Correct me if I am wrong... but I believe that the Senators would be appointed directly by the House. Should they (the State Legislature) feel that a Senator is not acting within the best interest of the state, the Senator can be removed from service.

SP1966
06-04-2014, 03:21 PM
Correct me if I am wrong... but I believe that the Senators would be appointed directly by the House. Should they (the State Legislature) feel that a Senator is not acting within the best interest of the state, the Senator can be removed from service.

Near as I can tell all revoking the 17th Amendment would do is move the money from DC to the State level. I'm surprised we haven't heard of state senators talking about this, why should only DC elected get paid?

SP1966
06-04-2014, 03:22 PM
The answer to people failing to vote a recumbent out... is to repeal the 17th amendment and expect these same citizens to become directly involved with their State Administration?

Zactly!

Note: I should probably get the habit of reading threads from the top down rather than bottom up! :)

SP1966
06-04-2014, 03:23 PM
http://www.truthinexile.com/17th-amendment-bad-repeal-it/

Wacist!

acrawlingchaos
06-04-2014, 04:29 PM
Note: I should probably get the habit of reading threads from the top down rather than bottom up! :)Nah... react first... then figure out if it was appropriate.

NorwichGrad
06-04-2014, 05:22 PM
In before someone says you are in favor of slavery.

LOL.. I submit that there are 'slaves' left in America.. But these slaves are not the type owned, like properties back in the day. These modern-day slaves are slaves in their own mind - the ones that refuse to think for themselves...the ones who refuse to remove the 'victim lens' and refuse to take personal responsibility.

so-tex
06-04-2014, 05:36 PM
LOL.. I submit that there are 'slaves' left in America.. But these slaves are not the type owned, like properties back in the day. These modern-day slaves are slaves in their own mind - the ones that refuse to think for themselves...the ones who refuse to remove the 'victim lens' and refuse to take personal responsibility.Those aren't slaves. It's the new trend in the USA, and they're growing at a very fast pace.

NorwichGrad
06-04-2014, 05:52 PM
Correct me if I am wrong... but I believe that the Senators would be appointed directly by the House. Should they (the State Legislature) feel that a Senator is not acting within the best interest of the state, the Senator can be removed from service.

BINGO!! The House is supposed to have more power than the Senate.. We all know that the three branches of government at the federal level are supposed to have balance of power.. The beauty of the Constitution, per the Founding Fathers' intent, is that not only should there be balance horizontally, there should also be balance vertically.. Kinda like our solar system.. Each planet revolving about its own orbit. And if they get too close, BAM!

The States and the Federal Government were supposed to be a representative form of government. At the local level, however, the early Americans were encouraged to exercise more of a participatory democracy. Kinda like town hall meetings, WHERE THE MAJORITY RULES. This is only ideal at the local level. At the state or national level, 'majority rules' will be disastrous. You have your own issues over there in New Hampshire. We have our own issues down here in PA.. And our Southern Brothers have their own issues in their towns in Texas, the Carolinas, etc.. So who would make the best decision at the local level? You know the answer to this. When you have an ultra-powerful centralized government mandating our Brothers in Alabama that they must have 45-degree pitched roof in case of a snow blizzard (I'm exaggerating to make a point), then you know the system is seriously broken.


And because the government has become this uncontrollable, too big to fail, beast, any laws they pass they are also exempt from..


I think the best way to take this country back is to start from grassroots.

NorwichGrad
06-04-2014, 05:54 PM
Those aren't slaves. It's the new trend in the USA, and they're growing at a very fast pace.

True.. But we can't give up. It doesn't take a majority to make a positive difference.

Frnkd
06-04-2014, 06:26 PM
What got me was the use the words "unconstitutional bills", who judges a bill unconstitutional is not the legislature, they propose bills that would eventually become law with the signature of the president. If the president veto than........you know the rest. If there is a challenge to that law then the courts decide the constitutionality of that law. That is what balance of power does. No one part of govt has more power that the other, in theory.

SP1966
06-04-2014, 06:39 PM
What got me was the use the words "unconstitutional bills", who judges a bill unconstitutional is not the legislature, they propose bills that would eventually become law with the signature of the president. If the president veto than........you know the rest. If there is a challenge to that law then the courts decide the constitutionality of that law. That is what balance of power does. No one part of govt has more power that the other, in theory.

What's your take on Holder saying AG's needn't enforce laws with which they disagree?

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/eric_holder_state_attorneys_general_are_not_obliga ted_to_defend_discriminatory_laws/

acrawlingchaos
06-04-2014, 06:50 PM
What's your take on Holder saying AG's needn't enforce laws with which they disagree?

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/25/eric_holder_state_attorneys_general_are_not_obliga ted_to_defend_discriminatory_laws/I think they should just hurry up with the impeachment process.

The1973
06-05-2014, 09:45 PM
More lunacy.

The1973
06-05-2014, 09:46 PM
Correct me if I am wrong... but I believe that the Senators would be appointed directly by the House. Should they (the State Legislature) feel that a Senator is not acting within the best interest of the state, the Senator can be removed from service.

That's idiocy. Gerrymandered districts.

The1973
06-05-2014, 09:47 PM
BINGO!! The House is supposed to have more power than the Senate.. We all know that the three branches of government at the federal level are supposed to have balance of power.. The beauty of the Constitution, per the Founding Fathers' intent, is that not only should there be balance horizontally, there should also be balance vertically.. Kinda like our solar system.. Each planet revolving about its own orbit. And if they get too close, BAM!

The States and the Federal Government were supposed to be a representative form of government. At the local level, however, the early Americans were encouraged to exercise more of a participatory democracy. Kinda like town hall meetings, WHERE THE MAJORITY RULES. This is only ideal at the local level. At the state or national level, 'majority rules' will be disastrous. You have your own issues over there in New Hampshire. We have our own issues down here in PA.. And our Southern Brothers have their own issues in their towns in Texas, the Carolinas, etc.. So who would make the best decision at the local level? You know the answer to this. When you have an ultra-powerful centralized government mandating our Brothers in Alabama that they must have 45-degree pitched roof in case of a snow blizzard (I'm exaggerating to make a point), then you know the system is seriously broken.


And because the government has become this uncontrollable, too big to fail, beast, any laws they pass they are also exempt from..


I think the best way to take this country back is to start from grassroots.

Oh yeah. Majority rules as long as it benefits conservatives.

The1973
06-06-2014, 05:36 AM
Near as I can tell all revoking the 17th Amendment would do is move the money from DC to the State level. I'm surprised we haven't heard of state senators talking about this, why should only DC elected get paid?

**** you *******

Old-Time-Lifter
06-06-2014, 05:53 AM
It would be difficult to refute this article, especially given the current state of affairs within Congress and the Senate.

Good read!

Actually it says a lot of the things I've argued for a while now. The Senators cater to the money now and not to the States. You can get outside monies and get the uninformed electorate to vote for you far easier than you can keep the State reps and Governor happy. Vastly removes power from the States and precisely where we really started to go off track.

The1973
06-06-2014, 05:55 AM
Actually it says a lot of the things I've argued for a while now. The Senators cater to the money now and not to the States. You can get outside monies and get the uninformed electorate to vote for you far easier than you can keep the State reps and Governor happy. Vastly removes power from the States and precisely where we really started to go off track.

It's nothing more than a ploy to give the NRA and their allies unlimited power.

The1973
06-06-2014, 06:03 AM
While your taking the 17th amendment away you may as well tKe the rest away too. Idiot.