quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
http://www.westernjournalism.com/scalia-defends-the-constitution-questions-the-17th-amendment/
Might not be a bad idea. This would allow the states more say in federalism, which I see as a right of the states.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

YES!

I have called for its repeal before.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Why would you use an example the ramblings of Scalia? He goes on and on about the structure of government mandated in the Constitution and the division of power it creates. He holds this division as a guarantor of our democracy that separates us from other pretenders to true democracy.

Then he rants against the 17th that in itself allows for division of power in states with single party majorities. In my state of Missouri without the direct election of Senators by the people the majority of the population, in big cities, would have no representatives in the Senate. Rural Republicans representing the minority of population would appoint Republican Senators ignoring the majority's wishes.

Not good in my opinion...let the people speak.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

We'll remove the 17th amendment, but we also remove the 2nd amendment at the same time. Deal?

You guys are bitching about the federal government having to much power. So now with the 17th removed, the states (whom the two major parties will control even more) will decide whom goes to the Senate, not the individual people within the state. When there is a vacancy, it will be the governor of that state whom places a hand-picked individual to go to the Senate. In both cases, you the individual would have far less say at the state or federal level than you have now.

I disagree with Scalia's argument. Both the Constitution....AND....the Amendments (Bill of Rights plus the other 17 amendments) u]ARE important to the United States of America. Metaphorically its like the human body. Remove the skeleton and its just a mass of organic goop. Remove other parts and it starts having dire effects on the living status of the entity. Scalia doesn't like the amendments because those amendments have shown him as an enemy of the United States! Through his 'court viewpoint', he helped allow people to be tortured. This is a violation of the 8th amendment. Irrelevant if the individuals in question were not US Citizens. The US Constitution explains the government's domain of power as it concerns individuals within that domain; including enemy combats. He doesnt like the 1st, since that allows liberals to constantly remind everyone of Scalia's antics. The guy has many problems with the amendments, not so much with the Constitution itself (except for the part were amendments can be created).

That 'We the People' can elect whom is in our government is a big freedom. I think we have seen many times what happens when elected officials place one of their henchmen/minions into a seat of power. Things get corrupted (according to conservative thought processes). So why allow that to happen to the Senate by way of the state government? If its to be corrupted, its 'We the People' whom should be doing it. That way we can blame ourselves when it does happen; rather than shoveling responsibility else where.

I use the 17th and 2nd 'deal' to get your attention at how important the 17th amendment actually is to America. Since some like to use 'Capitalism' as our form of currency, there is a cost to removing the 17th amendment. That cost is the removal of the 2nd amendment. If you want it badly enough, you'll agree to remove the 2nd.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

We'll remove the 17th amendment, but we also remove the 2nd amendment at the same time. Deal?

You guys are bitching about the federal government having to much power. So now with the 17th removed, the states (whom the two major parties will control even more) will decide whom goes to the Senate, not the individual people within the state. When there is a vacancy, it will be the governor of that state whom places a hand-picked individual to go to the Senate. In both cases, you the individual would have far less say at the state or federal level than you have now.

I disagree with Scalia's argument. Both the Constitution....AND....the Amendments (Bill of Rights plus the other 17 amendments) u]ARE important to the United States of America. Metaphorically its like the human body. Remove the skeleton and its just a mass of organic goop. Remove other parts and it starts having dire effects on the living status of the entity. Scalia doesn't like the amendments because those amendments have shown him as an enemy of the United States! Through his 'court viewpoint', he helped allow people to be tortured. This is a violation of the 8th amendment. Irrelevant if the individuals in question were not US Citizens. The US Constitution explains the government's domain of power as it concerns individuals within that domain; including enemy combats. He doesnt like the 1st, since that allows liberals to constantly remind everyone of Scalia's antics. The guy has many problems with the amendments, not so much with the Constitution itself (except for the part were amendments can be created).

That 'We the People' can elect whom is in our government is a big freedom. I think we have seen many times what happens when elected officials place one of their henchmen/minions into a seat of power. Things get corrupted (according to conservative thought processes). So why allow that to happen to the Senate by way of the state government? If its to be corrupted, its 'We the People' whom should be doing it. That way we can blame ourselves when it does happen; rather than shoveling responsibility else where.

I use the 17th and 2nd 'deal' to get your attention at how important the 17th amendment actually is to America. Since some like to use 'Capitalism' as our form of currency, there is a cost to removing the 17th amendment. That cost is the removal of the 2nd amendment. If you want it badly enough, you'll agree to remove the 2nd.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It's Thursday so let's repeal the 2nd amendment.
There's a measles outbreak so let's repeal the 2nd amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It's Thursday so let's repeal the 2nd amendment.
There's a measles outbreak so let's repeal the 2nd amendment.

"The day ends with a y so lets hijack another thread for our mindless far left obfuscation crap"

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I think our elected representatives should reflect the majority vote...don't you? The Supreme court's job is to protect the minority... checks and balance you know.

Butch