|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Nutbag teahadist Joe Miller wants to abolish direct voting for Senate (10/7/2010 4:19:31 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Your (and other lefties) comments show a dense inability to understand the history of our government, the reasons for the amendment, the effects that the amendment has had, and the specific reason that some of us wish it had never been adopted.
Short history, via widipedia:
The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which Senators were elected by state legislatures. On April 8, 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment was adopted.
The reason for the appointment of Senators in the original Constitution was as a balance between the power of States, and the power of the Federal Government.
The Federal government has grown too powerful, and some of us would welcome a return to a better balance.
Of course, if you are a believer in "more government is better government" then you would oppose this. This also means you oppose the Founder's principles.
So slinging comments and insults to people who are seeking a better balance (just as our Founders did) would seem to indicate that you and your cohorts are the ones who are the ones who do not understand the Constitution, and who do not honor the principles enshrined in it.
Firm
Throw out the Wikipedia and try a few history books.
The founding fathers that you so lovingly refer to were the elitists of their day.
You know, those same elitists that you want to "take our country back" from.
They did not believe the people were capable of informed decisions because the population was largely rural and uneducated at the time.
The reason for the appointment of Senators was to be a limitation on the popular vote allowed for the House.
The Federalist No. 62
Among the various modes which might have been devised for constituting this branch of the government, that which has been proposed by the convention is probably the most congenial with the public opinion. It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.
...
In this spirit it may be remarked, that the equal vote allowed to each State is at once a constitutional recognition of the portion of sovereignty remaining in the individual States, and an instrument for preserving that residuary sovereignty. So far the equality ought to be no less acceptable to the large than to the small States; since they are not less solicitous to guard, by every possible expedient, against an improper consolidation of the States into one simple republic.
...
Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.
...
First. It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust. In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government. It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient.
Seems to me that the direct appointment of Senators was designed to ensure that the sovereignty of the States was maintained, and that the rights of the people were not infringed.
Firm
|
|
|
|
