Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED II

[chipbennett]

But that way didn't work out very well, thus the change. Why would it be better now?

ETA - Just to clarify, I am not challenging your idea or saying anything is good or bad. I just don't know much about the differences involved and am curious.

It worked exactly as intended, to preserve a federal, constitutional republic. The Senate was intended to represent the several, sovereign states - not the general populace of those states. That, of course, didn't work for the democrats, who thrive on mob rule. Thus, they pushed through a change to ensure that Senators are little more than longer-serving Representatives.

As a result, the concept of states being sovereign entities in a federation has largely been lost, and a considerable amount of any real, federal-level significance of state-level legislatures has been likewise lost.

 

[chipbennett]

Wouldn't the appointed senators be more inclined to represent the state legislature as opposed to representing the state population? I know ideally those two groups would have the same interests but our world is not ideal.

That's a feature, not a bug.

 

[nonobaddog]

It worked exactly as intended, to preserve a federal, constitutional republic. The Senate was intended to represent the several, sovereign states - not the general populace of those states. That, of course, didn't work for the democrats, who thrive on mob rule. Thus, they pushed through a change to ensure that Senators are little more than longer-serving Representatives.

As a result, the concept of states being sovereign entities in a federation has largely been lost, and a considerable amount of any real, federal-level significance of state-level legislatures has been likewise lost.

It did not work as intended because too often the states failed to appoint the required senators.

 

[chipbennett]

It did not work as intended because too often the states failed to appoint the required senators.

And how, exactly, was that a problem? The states followed their own legislature's rules (or state statutes) regarding appointment of US Senators. In any case, only 2% of state legislature elections of US Senators resulted in such a deadlock. I assume many of those vacancies were related to the nationwide political crisis that was the abolition movement and eventual Civil War - though 45 were caused by Federal law enacted in 1866 that regulated state selection of US Senators.

I would argue that none of the problems intended to be solved by direct election - bribery/corruption, lobbyist influence/conflicts of interest, politically divided populaces, etc. - have actually been improved by the change from legislature appointment to direct election.

 

[nonobaddog]

And how, exactly, was that a problem? The states followed their own legislature's rules (or state statutes) regarding appointment of US Senators. In any case, only 2% of state legislature elections of US Senators resulted in such a deadlock. I assume many of those vacancies were related to the nationwide political crisis that was the abolition movement and eventual Civil War - though 45 were caused by Federal law enacted in 1866 that regulated state selection of US Senators.

I would argue that none of the problems intended to be solved by direct election - bribery/corruption, lobbyist influence/conflicts of interest, politically divided populaces, etc. - have actually been improved by the change from legislature appointment to direct election.

I am curious about which way would be better. However I don't know much about it or have a strong opinion either way.

My statement about the vacancies is based on a similar statement at Senate.gov where it says the legislature appointment system led to "frequent" vacancies. They make it sound like this was the overriding reason for the seventeenth amendment.

"In 1913 the Seventeenth Amendment officially became a part of the U.S. Constitution, providing for the direct popular election of senators. This was a major departure from the plan adopted by the framers in 1787. According to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years.” The framers believed that in electing senators, state legislatures would cement their ties with the national government. They also expected that senators elected by state legislatures would be freed from pressures of public opinion and therefore better able to concentrate on legislative business and serve the needs of each state. In essence, senators would serve as “states’ ambassadors” to the federal government. Unfortunately, problems with this system soon arose, particularly when state legislators failed to agree on a Senate candidate, causing frequent Senate vacancies. By 1826 proposals for direct election of senators began appearing, but it took reformers nearly a century to achieve this constitutional change. "

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistor...Feature_Homepage_ElectedStateLegislatures.htm

 

[utahskies]

" By the power of greyskull"


Duty not
Honor not
Sacrafice not

Power at all costs ye$

"This is NOT the way"

 

[2A_Tom]

It is about nothing but power.
[video=youtube;j1BNcSBApOU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1BNcSBApOU[/video]

 

[HoughMade]

But that way didn't work out very well, thus the change. Why would it be better now?

ETA - Just to clarify, I am not challenging your idea or saying anything is good or bad. I just don't know much about the differences involved and am curious.

It changed because of a contrived populism movement, not because it didn't work.

Want the federal government to stop stealing state's power? Install people in the federal government with an incentive to protect state power.

It worked exactly as intended, to preserve a

federal, constitutional republic. The Senate was intended to represent the several, sovereign states - not the general populace of those states. That, of course, didn't work for the democrats, who thrive on mob rule. Thus, they pushed through a change to ensure that Senators are little more than longer-serving Representatives.

As a result, the concept of states being sovereign entities in a federation has largely been lost, and a considerable amount of any real, federal-level significance of state-level legislatures has been likewise lost.

^^^ This.

 

[nonobaddog]

The Senate was intended to represent the several, sovereign states - not the general populace of those states. That, of course, didn't work for the democrats, who thrive on mob rule. Thus, they pushed through a change to ensure that Senators are little more than longer-serving Representatives.

As a result, the concept of states being sovereign entities in a federation has largely been lost, and a considerable amount of any real, federal-level significance of state-level legislatures has been likewise lost.

Thanks. That part makes sense. I think I'm forming an opinion.

At first glance the part that scared me was politicians selecting politicians - sounds like home sweet home for corruption. I could see that working well back in the founding days when integrity was still a thing. Today I think it would need some watching.

 

[chipbennett]

Thanks. That part makes sense. I think I'm forming an opinion.

At first glance the part that scared me was politicians selecting politicians - sounds like home sweet home for corruption. I could see that working well back in the founding days when integrity was still a thing. Today I think it would need some watching.

Interesting idea.

I'm curious: what do you think most people pay attention to (i.e. watch) today, the Kabuki Theater in the District of Columbia, or the goings-on of their own, state legislatures? Which should they pay more attention to? Which would they pay more attention to, if the federal government limited its concerns to matters involving the several states, rather than private citizens - and if state legislatures were still responsible for appointing US Senators?

I argue that a federal government that needs individual, private citizens to act as watchdogs has already moved well-beyond its enumerated powers and responsibilities in a federation of sovereign states. I further argue that subjecting the federal government to the whims of the populace rather than matters of inter-state importance has actually lessened the interest of the individual in their own state legislatures.

 

[Ingomike]

But that way didn't work out very well, thus the change. Why would it be better now?

ETA - Just to clarify, I am not challenging your idea or saying anything is good or bad. I just don't know much about the differences involved and am curious.

Have not read other responses to this post.

The Framers devised a system where the three branches of government represented all parties of the Constitution well. The congress power was divided to ensure two distinct parties were represented.

The house was to be pure unbridled populism elected every 2 years at the whim of the people, it was meant to be the weather vane of the people, a quick response to anything that excited the people, good and bad. Think change in the house after Obamacare passed. Just as it is supposed to work.

The senate was to represent the interests of the state itself. They were given term three times longer, though many states did have a recall mechanism, to temper potential house impetuousness, this is why the senate is called the worlds greatest deliberative body. For example it was thought that a senator from Florida elected by the state would better represent the interests of the state in rural citrus growers than one elected by the cities in a popular that may have had other priorities. In fact the outcome of Obamacare may have been very different.

It has crossed my mind many times that the equal protection clause issue may someday be seriously considered by a court because of the change to popular vote that would be mute if senators were still elected by the state...

 

[nonobaddog]

Interesting idea.

I'm curious: what do you think most people pay attention to (i.e. watch) today, the Kabuki Theater in the District of Columbia, or the goings-on of their own, state legislatures? Which should they pay more attention to? Which would they pay more attention to, if the federal government limited its concerns to matters involving the several states, rather than private citizens - and if state legislatures were still responsible for appointing US Senators?

I argue that a federal government that needs individual, private citizens to act as watchdogs has already moved well-beyond its enumerated powers and responsibilities in a federation of sovereign states. I further argue that subjecting the federal government to the whims of the populace rather than matters of inter-state importance has actually lessened the interest of the individual in their own state legislatures.

I think most people pay more attention to the federal level until some state issue comes along that grabs the attention.
For myself I follow the federal level in the national news sources of my choice and I follow state legislature mostly through emails from state representatives and senators of my choice. In normal times it would be tough to say which I follow closer although since the sham impeachment thing is going on I would have to say federal level easily, but that should end soon.

I think most people are paying more attention to federal now purely because of the impeachment show. I sure hope they switch to state level when things come up like gun control, drug control, budget, taxes, etc.

 

[BugI02]

That's a feature, not a bug.

Hey, now

 

[Alpo]

That's a feature, not a bug.

and you guys call the Dems on this site "Statists".....

 

[Ingomike]

and you guys call the Dems on this site "Statists".....

From Webster dictionary, clearly not what we are discussing...

[h=2]Definition of statism[/h]

: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry

 

[BugI02]

and you guys call the Dems on this site "Statists".....

But only because it's true

 

[Ingomike]

Realclearinvestigations is reporting that the whistleblower was discussing the need to "take out" President Trump, just days after his inauguration.

I do not think they will have witnesses but he would be a doozy to see...

 

[2A_Tom]

and you guys call the Dems on this site "Statists".....

You think that the several States having input in the central government is bad? How about abolishing the electoral college and putting everything in the hands of the mob?

 

[jamil]

Thanks. That part makes sense. I think I'm forming an opinion.

At first glance the part that scared me was politicians selecting politicians - sounds like home sweet home for corruption. I could see that working well back in the founding days when integrity was still a thing. Today I think it would need some watching.

Keep in mind, the politicians appointed by politicians isn’t just one person deciding. It’s the state’s legislative body. If it takes a 2/3 majority, the person really isn’t going to be a partisan hack. It has to be someone both sides really agree on. And there will be times they cannot agree on anyone, like when there is a really divisive issue of the day, for example slavery.

I think the result would be, fewer bat**** crazy senators, except in the most fringe states with legislative super majorities. It would also guard against mob rule. And help get money out of the senate. They wouldn’t need to constantly fundraise if they were appointed.

As the others have said, the reasons given at the time were selfish. Much like reasons given for stupid **** like the PATRIOT Act, they convinced people that the problems that existed were all going to be fixed if they just do this one thing.

 

[Dead Duck]

and you guys call the Dems on this site "Statists".....

No....
ALL Dems are Statists. Not just the ones here on INGO. It's just a fact.
Same as all Dems are gun grabbers. Not just the ones here on INGO. It's just a fact.

I just spoke with an x-friend that is going to vote for a democrat in the next election and they told me not to take it personally.
A vote for "D" is a vote against my guns. How do I NOT take that personally.