• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tea Partiers want to repeal the 17th amendment

Queen

Queen

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
98
Reaction score
25
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Sorry, but the Tea Partiers really are crazy. They want to take away our right to vote for our Senators!

Why Repeal 17th Amendment?

They want our Senators to be appointed. Back room deals. Corruption. Great idea.

So several Republican candidates who are trying to get the Tea Party vote had had to walk back from supporting this stupid idea.

Tea Party-Backed Repeal Of The 17th Amendment Gets Republicans Into Trouble | TPMDC

Here's a little history about how the 17th amendment came about.

The amendment says voters get to decide who represents them in the Senate. Before its ratification in 1913, legislatures elected senators.

As you can imagine, the old system reeked of dealmaking, bribery and corruption.

The poster boy for reform was Montana’s William Clark, a copper-mining magnate who bought a Senate seat in 1899 by paying $2,500 to each legislator to vote for him. So egregious was the scheme that the Senate refused to seat him.

Here’s what Mark Twain had to say about Clark:

“He is as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag; he is a shame to the American nation, and no one has helped to send him to the Senate who did not know that his proper place was the penitentiary, with a ball and chain on his legs.”
Click to expand...

http://www.magicvalley.com/news/opinion/editorial/article_8910467b-72b6-5eb0-9df4-143af29432fe.html

And Mark Twain's words pertain to the Tea Party Republican candidates of today, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I think the idea of repeal of the 17th amendment has been talked about here. I think it has something to do with states having a vested interest in keeping the federal government out of their business, which would create a mechanism for a smaller federal government since states would have to approve of new laws.
 
megaprogman said:
I think the idea of repeal of the 17th amendment has been talked about here. I think it has something to do with states having a vested interest in keeping the federal government out of their business, which would create a mechanism for a smaller federal government since states would have to approve of new laws.
Click to expand...





Very nice. I applaud your explanation.
 
megaprogman said:
I think the idea of repeal of the 17th amendment has been talked about here. I think it has something to do with states having a vested interest in keeping the federal government out of their business, which would create a mechanism for a smaller federal government since states would have to approve of new laws.
Click to expand...

Terrible idea. Been tried. All you get is rich guys buying their way in.

Why would anyone want to give up their vote?

I can't understand right wing thinking.
 
Queen said:
Terrible idea. Been tried. All you get is rich guys buying their way in.

Why would anyone want to give up their vote?

I can't understand right wing thinking.
Click to expand...




Because that doesn't happen now. :ssst:
 
Queen said:
Terrible idea. Been tried. All you get is rich guys buying their way in.

Why would anyone want to give up their vote?

I can't understand right wing thinking.
Click to expand...

Well, I agree that it is a bad idea, but that was the argument as I remember it.
 
megaprogman said:
Well, I agree that it is a bad idea, but that was the argument as I remember it.
Click to expand...

Well, weak minded partisan brainwashed freaks don't use their heads and THINK. They just follow along and agree with anything the Tea Party nutjobs put forth. And most of these Tea Party wackos ARE RICH ELITE assholes who'd LOVE to buy a Senate seat instead of having to run for election.
 
Oh, I, as a tea party member did not say I support it. I just thought mega's explaination was pretty good.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Oh, I, as a tea party member did not say I support it. I just thought mega's explaination was pretty good.
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Sure....

You totally followed along because you thought it was a good idea with his explanation. Then when you found out he doesn't agree with it, you backed down, just like the Republican candidates who are suddenly backing down now.

What a bunch of idiots these tea baggers are.
 
Queen said:
Well, weak minded partisan brainwashed freaks don't use their heads and THINK. They just follow along and agree with anything the Tea Party nutjobs put forth. And most of these Tea Party wackos ARE RICH ELITE assholes who'd LOVE to buy a Senate seat instead of having to run for election.
Click to expand...

Let's just breathe Queen, Breathe, deep breaths happy thoughts, wooosa...
 
I'm for anything that stops or limits the constant election cycle.
 
Queen said:
We still have a vote.

Why would you want to give it up?
Click to expand...

Because appointing senators tempers the rule of the federal government. It keeps federalism alive by giving states a say in Washington. When the states have more power, they can dictate what policies work best for them instead of dealing with a top down federal approach.
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Because appointing senators tempers the rule of the federal government. It keeps federalism alive by giving states a say in Washington. When the states have more power, they can dictate what policies work best for them instead of dealing with a top down federal approach.
Click to expand...

Completely ridiculous. How can anyone think giving up your vote for your Senator is a good idea? How in the hell would appointing instead of electing Senators make states stronger? All it would do (and has done) would be to bring more corruption and back room dealings into government.
 
Queen said:
LOL!!! Sure....

You totally followed along because you thought it was a good idea with his explanation. Then when you found out he doesn't agree with it, you backed down, just like the Republican candidates who are suddenly backing down now.

What a bunch of idiots these tea baggers are.
Click to expand...




A pretty lady like you with such a vulgar mouth.... :doh
 
Queen said:
I can't. My country is filled with complete idiots!!!!!
Click to expand...

You could always give up your citizenship and move elsewhere - you know, where smart people live. Like Greece for example. :mrgreen:
 
DrunkenAsparagus said:
Because appointing senators tempers the rule of the federal government. It keeps federalism alive by giving states a say in Washington. When the states have more power, they can dictate what policies work best for them instead of dealing with a top down federal approach.
Click to expand...

State legislators, as per the example in the OP, would be subject to backroom deal making. Also imagine the pressure on the senators they elect to deliver even more pork to their home states.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So acccording to Queen, you are a teabagging idiot..... :2razz::shock::lamo
Click to expand...

Shucks, color me stupid.

You do realize that the Tea Party express contributes somewhat to the constant election cycle.

The 2010 Midterms started in late Nov. 2008.

The John McCain running for Senator is not the same man who ran for president--the moderate, mature, pragmatist has been swapped out for a hardliner.

This constant changing of the message to better align with focus groups and polls--appealing to the widest majority possible.

Sarah Palin has become a professional political spokesmodel.
 
I would not want appointments - but I would like to see the amendment changed to reflect less of a career and more of a state focus. Reduce 6 year terms to 4, and limit the maximum terms to 3 meaning no Senator can be a Senator for more than 12 years - and they're done. Whatever they want to do, they have that amount of time. Regarding the costs -- I never liked that States pick up so much of these elections, but I don't have a better suggestion other than making candidates pay out of pocket which pretty much guarantees only the rich elites could run for the office. But doesn't that pretty much happen now anyway?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom