Quote from: John Morrow;220434That, and I'd give the election of Senators back to state legislatures.

Care to explain this one further. I'm a little curious as to how you'd see this working.

Quote from: Serious Paul;220541Care to explain this one further. I'm a little curious as to how you'd see this working.

Do you mean practically how it would work or how why I think it would be better than what we do now?

The 17th Amendment changed how Senators were elected.  Originally, Senators were elected by the state legislatures:

   The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

The 17th Amendment changed that to:

   The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.

Why do I think it would be better if they were elected by the state legislatures than by the people of the states?  Senators were intended to be representatives of their states and I think that's and important role.  But more importantly, man of the advise and consent powers given the Senate, including the ratification of treaties and the approval of Supreme Court justices would be better performed, in my opinion, by people who didn't have to deal directly with special interests and pandering to voters.  And before anyone claims that I'm supporting this for partisan reasons, Democrats currently have a significant advantage in control of state legislatures.

Quote from: Jackalope;220499The will to do it still isn't there though.

Iowa is the one state that seems to have had the will.

Quote from: John Morrow;220655Why do I think it would be better if [Senators] were elected by the state legislatures than by the people of the states?

For the record, I agree with you on this issue, John.  Though I'm sure we could find philosophical differences on the specifics, there are many instances where the people's direct involvement in representative democracy leads to inaction or indifference, which, in turn, opens the door to special interests to capitalise on those weaknesses.

Another plus is that a system like this might encourage voters to pay more attention to their state politics and the representatives they elect to represent them on that level.

!i!

Quote from: Ian Absentia;220660Another plus is that a system like this might encourage voters to pay more attention to their state politics and the representatives they elect to represent them on that level.

That was my initial thought.

Interesting, I wasn't as familiar with the 17th Amendment as I should be, so your ideas were pretty intriguing to me John. I'm not sure how I feel yet about it, and will have to think on it a while. Thanks for taking the time to explain it to me.

Quote from: John Morrow;220655Why do I think it would be better if they were elected by the state legislatures than by the people of the states?  Senators were intended to be representatives of their states and I think that's and important role.  But more importantly, [many] of the advise and consent powers given the Senate, including the ratification of treaties and the approval of Supreme Court justices would be better performed, in my opinion, by people who didn't have to deal directly with special interests and pandering to voters.  And before anyone claims that I'm supporting this for partisan reasons, Democrats currently have a significant advantage in control of state legislatures.

Of course, it was the perception that senators had been corrupted by special interests ("financiers") that prompted the 17th amendment in the first place.

Changing didn't throw them off then, changing back wouldn't throw them off now.

Quote from: Serious Paul;220746Interesting, I wasn't as familiar with the 17th Amendment as I should be, so your ideas were pretty intriguing to me John.

You should read through the Constitution in it's entirely at some point.  It's not that long and there is some fascinating stuff in there.  I love the fact, for example, that Congress has the authority to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.

Also note that Congress has the power to (A) make rules concerning captures on land and water and (B) allows them to suspend habeas corpus "when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it," which is why the recent Supreme Court ruling about captured enemy combatants is so clearly at odds with the clear wording of the Constitution.  

Please also note that the 17th Amendment was ratified the same year as the 16th Amendment (1913), the amendment that altered the Constitutions prohibition on income taxes.  Both of those amendments probably did more to fundamentally increase the scope and power of the Federal Government than any other changes, at least structurally.

Quote from: Jackalope;220764Of course, it was the perception that senators had been corrupted by special interests ("financiers") that prompted the 17th amendment in the first place.

Changing didn't throw them off then, changing back wouldn't throw them off now.

I didn't say that special interests were my only reason for wanting a repeal.  I do think it would also have a significant impact on things like unfunded mandates and federal grabs on state power if the Senators had to answer to state legislatures to get and keep their office.

Quote from: John Morrow;220765You should read through the Constitution in it's entirely at some point.

Oh I have, many many times. But I don't have it memorized.

Quote from: John Morrow;219975I thought the "change" was supposed to happen after he became President, not while he was running for the job.

Although I think these are all fair criticisms, anyone who didn't think that they were voting for a politician was frankly naive.

Politician changes views to get elected, in other news Pope not big fan of contraception.

Yes, he promised a new type of politics, he's not the first to do that and he won't be the last.  I agree though that his campaign rhetoric makes it fair to take him to task on this particular point, the family values comparison is a good one.

So where's the thread on what a spineless jerk McCain is, then?  He's proven himself time and time again to be ever the weasel when it comes down to pinning any real conviction on him.

Oh wait, he's a Republican.  Morrow would never go for the right wing candidate, would he?  Oh sure, round about the middle of the thread (probably in response to this post), he'll try to play the centrist, but then go right back to bending over to defend the right wing from it's enemies.  

The fundamental definition of a politician is someone who will tell you whatever the hell you want, if it'll get you to vote for him.  The only difference is how good they are at getting away with it.  McCain sucks at it, Obama's better than some.  they're still both slimeballs, so I see no reason other than mindless partisanship to pick any one target over the other.  

Both sides leave plenty of stink in the bowl with the morning dump.

Quote from: J Arcane;220967So where's the thread on what a spineless jerk McCain is, then?  He's proven himself time and time again to be ever the weasel when it comes down to pinning any real conviction on him.

Feel free to start one.  McCain was not my first or even second choice for the Republican ticket and I've said as much.

Quote from: J Arcane;220967So where's the thread on what a spineless jerk McCain is, then?  He's proven himself time and time again to be ever the weasel when it comes down to pinning any real conviction on him.

McCain's not running on a wind of change ticket or as some kind of new politician, I think that is a valid distinction. If a politician sets themself apart or above others in some way, it's fair to ask if they then meet their own standard.  It's why Conservatives tend to be fair game for sex scandals, and Liberals not so much.  The Liberals rarely preached abstinence in the first place, the Conservatives typically did.

Anyway, why should John Morrow have to start a McCain thread?  Where did he ever claim to be other than Republican?  Is there any regular poster on this board unaware of John's politics?

Quote from: Balbinus;221115McCain's not running on a wind of change ticket or as some kind of new politician, I think that is a valid distinction.

Could've fooled me back when he was announcing how he wanted to see an end to the mob-like stranglehold of the religious right on the Republican party.  

QuoteAnyway, why should John Morrow have to start a McCain thread?  Where did he ever claim to be other than Republican?  Is there any regular poster on this board unaware of John's politics?

Morrow's backpedalling knows no bounds.  It's starting to become rather predictable, really.  Just because no one buys it when he tries to deny his biases doesn't mean he doesn't keep trying in thread after thread.  

After all, he keeps claiming he's no fan of McCain and so forth, yet as I stated, where's the nasty threads about the most spinless Republican lapdog since Colin Powell?