Tea Partiers want to repeal the 17th amendment

[Slartibartfast]

i don't understand. appointed or elected, how would their role in washington chage?

I think the major difference is that they would seek earmarks for state government rather than the state. So, not much.

 

[samsmart]

See my post #25

See my post #60.

Term limits are the reduction of terms aren't the answer. The reason why the Senate has longer terms is to insulate the legislature from passing knee-jerk legislation that's bad for our country. As much as I abhor the Republican obstructionism of the Democrats without providing any legislative alternatives in the Senate, I abhor even more legislation that's passed based only on the emotion of the time without being well thought out or debated. It's that kind of crap that has given us the War on Drugs and the PATRIOT Act that has the most long-term support only among politicians of both sides but extremely little long-term support among voters of both sides.

And the reason why I don't want term limits is because I want our Congressmen and Senators on committees to be able to gain experience legislating those areas that their committees overlook.

Think of it this way. While we have Congressional committees legislating certain aspects of law, we always forget the executive Departments that enforce those certain aspects of law. Those Departments need people experienced in those areas to execute the laws Congress legislates. For many such executive posts, the President calls upon Congressmen and Senators from the Congressional committees related to the executive Department they run. Congressmen from the Armed Services Committee can be eventually asked to take posts in the Department of Defense or Veterans' Affairs. Senators from the Foreign Relations Committee can be eventually asked to take posts in the Department of State.

With term limits we also limit the experience and knowledge of our politicians who not only write law but also enforce it. That's a limitation I'd rather not have.

 

[samsmart]

I think the major difference is that they would seek earmarks for state government rather than the state. So, not much.

Indeed. Which only means that Republicans will get pissed off at Democrat state parties for using federal money for welfare programs within individual states while at the same time those GOPers use federal money to give no-bid contracts to companies and corporations within individual states.

 

[Renae]

Way to not answer the question there.

I did answer the question.

WE aren't supposed to have a direct say in the Senate. Wasn't set up for that.

It was populist progressives of the early 20th century that pushed the notion all would be rainbows and puppy's if we voted for Senator's instead of letting those damned corrupt state governments select them. There was too much money in the system back then... Yes, I do know why the 17th Amendment was passed. And by all accounts the reasoning for the passage have proven out to be false in every measure.

There is MORE money, more special interest, more pandering with Senate seats then ever before.

 

[Ockham]

See my post #60.

Term limits are the reduction of terms aren't the answer. The reason why the Senate has longer terms is to insulate the legislature from passing knee-jerk legislation that's bad for our country.

A change from 6 years to 4 years is hardly "knee jerk". Therefore on that basis, you're reasoning holds no water.

As much as I abhor the Republican obstructionism of the Democrats without providing any legislative alternatives in the Senate,

Which is incorrect - Republican's have provided alternatives. Most recently seen during the lost year of Health Care that was passed with Democrat backroom deals, no transparency, and little to no debate allowed on the Congressional floor by Democrat leaders. At least an attempt at being factual would be appreciated.

I abhor even more legislation that's passed based only on the emotion of the time without being well thought out or debated. It's that kind of crap that has given us the War on Drugs and the PATRIOT Act that has the most long-term support only among politicians of both sides but extremely little long-term support among voters of both sides.

Then you probably abhor the Health Care bill as well.

And the reason why I don't want term limits is because I want our Congressmen and Senators on committees to be able to gain experience legislating those areas that their committees overlook.

Within 2-4 years, one gains enough experience to excel at legislating. One does not need 20+ years to know what to do or become good at it and I would argue I do no want nor would advocate legislators gaining such experience. The experience you claim is more apt to reflect how to manipulate the system, votes, legislation and laws to milk taxpayers for earmarks and pork to benefit not only the politician but their supporters. Why would I sign on to encourage what basically comes down to legalized corruption commonly called "making the sausage"? The only reason would be for purely partisan and ideological reasons - which I am seeing you support.

Think of it this way. While we have Congressional committees legislating certain aspects of law, we always forget the executive Departments that enforce those certain aspects of law. Those Departments need people experienced in those areas to execute the laws Congress legislates. For many such executive posts, the President calls upon Congressmen and Senators from the Congressional committees related to the executive Department they run. Congressmen from the Armed Services Committee can be eventually asked to take posts in the Department of Defense or Veterans' Affairs. Senators from the Foreign Relations Committee can be eventually asked to take posts in the Department of State.

Frankly, we have too many laws. I'd rather Congress do less legislating for the more they do, the more they try and push forward government and grow that government. I want Congress to view legislation with a cynical and sparing eye - not to pass laws or support laws to further their own political agenda so that, during elections, they can list all the nonsense they passed in the name of "helping people". People don't need help - they need opportunity and freedom to excel. And I don't want Congressmen to cross contaminate into other government positions. 12 and out - they have that much time. No further government jobs, they go back into the private sector.

With term limits we also limit the experience and knowledge of our politicians who not only write law but also enforce it. That's a limitation I'd rather not have.

It's a limitation I'd support, and put my money and votes behind it.

 

[samsmart]

I did answer the question.

WE aren't supposed to have a direct say in the Senate. Wasn't set up for that.

It was populist progressives of the early 20th century that pushed the notion all would be rainbows and puppy's if we voted for Senator's instead of letting those damned corrupt state governments select them. There was too much money in the system back then... Yes, I do know why the 17th Amendment was passed. And by all accounts the reasoning for the passage have proven out to be false in every measure.

There is MORE money, more special interest, more pandering with Senate seats then ever before.

Then instead of repealing the 17th amendment, why not instead pass a campaign finance reform amendment?

 

[liblady]

ah.......thanks.

 

[samsmart]

A change from 6 years to 4 years is hardly "knee jerk". Therefore on that basis, you're reasoning holds no water.

But it doesn't provide the same amount of stability or longevity that 6 years provides.

Which is incorrect - Republican's have provided alternatives. Most recently seen during the lost year of Health Care that was passed with Democrat backroom deals, no transparency, and little to no debate allowed on the Congressional floor by Democrat leaders. At least an attempt at being factual would be appreciated.

If those were really viable alternatives then why didn't the Republicans push them through Congress when they were in power?

Then you probably abhor the Health Care bill as well.

I do. I'd have preferred a full public option.

Within 2-4 years, one gains enough experience to excel at legislating. One does not need 20+ years to know what to do or become good at it and I would argue I do no want nor would advocate legislators gaining such experience.

Bull****. It takes 2-4 years to learn the basics of a field of study. It then takes at least 5 more years after that in order to excel in doing such a field on one's own. It takes several years after that in order to adequately understand all the synergies related to that field. This is why private companies prefer to get people with so much experience instead of choosing people right out of college for top executive positions - because there are specializations that can only be understood with years of experience. If private companies don't operate so ineptly as to use inexperienced people, I don't want the government to do so either.

The experience you claim is more apt to reflect how to manipulate the system, votes, legislation and laws to milk taxpayers for earmarks and pork to benefit not only the politician but their supporters. Why would I sign on to encourage what basically comes down to legalized corruption commonly called "making the sausage"? The only reason would be for purely partisan and ideological reasons - which I am seeing you support.

Term limits won't stop Congressmen from using earmarks, it just means that Congressmen will use earmarks without experience and will more prone to corruption because they know fewer of the subtleties of how earmarks work.

Frankly, we have too many laws. I'd rather Congress do less legislating for the more they do, the more they try and push forward government and grow that government. I want Congress to view legislation with a cynical and sparing eye - not to pass laws or support laws to further their own political agenda so that, during elections, they can list all the nonsense they passed in the name of "helping people". People don't need help - they need opportunity and freedom to excel. And I don't want Congressmen to cross contaminate into other government positions. 12 and out - they have that much time. No further government jobs, they go back into the private sector.[/end]

I agree that we do have too many laws. However, that won't end with term limits either. All that means is that we'll have ignorant people passing even more bad legislation because they aren't experienced enough to know which is bad and which is good.

And term limits won't stop Congressmen from being appointing to executive departments either. And if you don't like cross-contamination, where do you expect to get people experienced in foreign affairs to work at the State Department? I don't know of any business that engages in private sector diplomacy, after all.

It's a limitation I'd support, and put my money and votes behind it.

I think age limits is a better limitation over term limits.

 

[Renae]

Then instead of repealing the 17th amendment, why not instead pass a campaign finance reform amendment?

So the FIRST amendment failed, let's pass another one to correct the problems with the first amendment!

No, let's repeal the BAD amendment, and go from there.

 

[samsmart]

So the FIRST amendment failed, let's pass another one to correct the problems with the first amendment!

No, let's repeal the BAD amendment, and go from there.

But it won't do what you've stated you wanted it to do. Repealing the 17th amendment has nothing to do with the campaign financing of Senatorial candidates. All it means is that instead of candidates getting money from lobbyists to pay for political ads candidates will get money from lobbyists to donate to state legislators.

And you're the one who has a problem with money being free speech if you think lobbyist campaign donations is leading to too much corruption.

 

[Queen]

I know this might be hard to understand, but there are perfectly rational arguments (from both sides of the political spectrum!) for repealing the 17th Amendment.

Also, you don't appear to understand how senators were elected before the 17th Amendment was enacted. You realize that you still get an indirect vote, right?

I don't want an indirect vote.

I want my direct vote.

I can't fathom why anyone would want to give up their vote. It's another case of Republicans voting against their own best interests. As usual.

And thanks for the personal attack of arrogance. Good role model in a thread where there's already warnings about personal attacks.

 

[Queen]

If the choice was agree with that other guy or agree with you, I'd probably pick him whatever his position was. No one likes a loud mouth know-it-all missy.

And no one likes a male chauvinist personal insulter.

Thank you, come again.

 

[Slartibartfast]

An ugly man like you with such a male chauvinist attitude. Oh wait, that makes sense.

If the choice was agree with that other guy or agree with you, I'd probably pick him whatever his position was. No one likes a loud mouth know-it-all missy.

And no one likes a male chauvinist personal insulter.

Thank you, come again.

Meanwhile the rest of us ... opcorn:opcorn2:

 

[Queen]

First, you should stop lying about what Rev said.

Go find his post where he claimed he would want to give it up.

You can't because you're lying about him saying that.

OK now you can apologize for lying about what he said.

I ****ing hate it when people lie about him.

wow, deja vu....

HAHA, Nice try at cleverness. Too bad poor ole rev loved the idea at the beginning of the thread.

Now you can apologize for calling me a liar.

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.

Very nice. I applaud your explanation.

 

[Queen]

Meanwhile the rest of us ... opcorn:opcorn2:

Oops, you forgot the first post, you know the one that was all male chauvinism....

But I guess that was intentional. No worries, the rest of us will navigate around the misleading quotes.

 

[Queen]

So the FIRST amendment failed, let's pass another one to correct the problems with the first amendment!

No, let's repeal the BAD amendment, and go from there.

The amendment didn't fail.

We vote for our Senators.

We don't want to give up our vote.

Campaign finance reform is the next step, not the repeal of the 17th amendment.

 

[Ockham]

But it doesn't provide the same amount of stability or longevity that 6 years provides.

I don't want stability and longevity in Congress. Why the hell would any non Congress member want that?

If those were really viable alternatives then why didn't the Republicans push them through Congress when they were in power?

Because the Republicans didn't take on the issue when they were in power.

Bull****. It takes 2-4 years to learn the basics of a field of study. It then takes at least 5 more years after that in order to excel in doing such a field on one's own. It takes several years after that in order to adequately understand all the synergies related to that field. This is why private companies prefer to get people with so much experience instead of choosing people right out of college for top executive positions - because there are specializations that can only be understood with years of experience. If private companies don't operate so ineptly as to use inexperienced people, I don't want the government to do so either.

Ok, I'll concede another term. 16 years max - then out. 2-4 year to learn, 5 more to excel, that leave between 10-12 additional years to work all the "synergies" which in itself is bull****... you know your job in the private sector which is based on merit and accomplishment - within 3-5 years. If one cannot excel within that timeframe they are either moved, fired or leave on their own. I DO want government to always be renewed, and I DO want new blood and not old experienced people who know how to manipulate the system and get comfortable with the existing corruption to stay. What you don't seem to realize is your false comparison between public and private sectors. They're not the same and you're comparing them is apples / oranges.

Term limits won't stop Congressmen from using earmarks, it just means that Congressmen will use earmarks without experience and will more prone to corruption because they know fewer of the subtleties of how earmarks work.

I never claimed they would - I do claim however that inexperienced tries at pork spending will be caught and those who are adept at it, will not be able to do such things for an entire career. If they are more prone to corruption, all the more reason to identify them and weed them out via the election process. These changes are to get a different cut of politician into elected office, not extend the existing bottom of the barrel. Don't embrace "hope" and "change" very well eh?

I agree that we do have too many laws. However, that won't end with term limits either. All that means is that we'll have ignorant people passing even more bad legislation because they aren't experienced enough to know which is bad and which is good.

I see it differently - I see different and diverse ideas being passed because they know they will not have another 20-30 years to push their political / ideological pet projects. Bad legislation is created by career politicians every session - that won't change, however that's why there are 2 senators for every state and why there's a House of Representatives and a Veto process.

And term limits won't stop Congressmen from being appointing to executive departments either. And if you don't like cross-contamination, where do you expect to get people experienced in foreign affairs to work at the State Department? I don't know of any business that engages in private sector diplomacy, after all.

Since when is private sector diplomacy a requirement? I think President Obama has blazed the way to appoint inexperienced and non-qualified personnel for all sorts of positions. Why would the reverse be a bad thing? In fact, I think private sector appointees would have a direct and divergent view on diplomacy which sounds like a good thing.

I think age limits is a better limitation over term limits.

And discriminate against an age group? I don't think that will garner much support.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Meanwhile the rest of us ... opcorn:opcorn2:

You are right and I apologize. We really have no way of knowing whether you are pretty or not. Thanks for pointing out my inaccuracy.

 

[Zyphlin]

HAHA, Nice try at cleverness. Too bad poor ole rev loved the idea at the beginning of the thread.

Now you can apologize for calling me a liar.

First, you should stop lying about what Rev said.

Go find his post where he claimed he loved the idea.

You can't because you're lying about him saying that. Your quoted post has him applauding a good explanation of why some may want it.

OK now you can apologize for lying about what he said.

I ****ing hate it when people lie about him.

wow, deja vu....

...wait crap, deja vu again...

 

[Zyphlin]

To me its an interesting notion, though I don't know how much I'd be for it. I'd need to look into it a bit more. I think it'd be more interested if paired with term limits. While you could say its not a "direct" vote, its not to different than the way in which the Presidential voting is done which isn't a "direct" vote either as we're actually voting as to what electors we send to then make the vote which of course don't have to vote in line with what the people want.

That said, last I checked there is only one really large, over arching, platform that is supported generally across the board amongst the various loosely connected Tea Party groups and that's the Contract From America. Representing what a few individual groups are stating they want as some kind of representation of the entier "Tea party movement" is a bit like finding a few anti-war movement groups that wanted the entire military stripped down to bare bones and presenting that as if it is the over all belief of the entire anti-war movement.

The more proper way to have titled this would've been "Tea Partiers in [insert state] want to repeal the 17th amendment". Instead the OP attempted to present this through implication as if it is an over arching message of the tea party movement at a national level, which just isn't the case.

 

[Renae]

The amendment didn't fail.

We vote for our Senators.

We don't want to give up our vote.

Campaign finance reform is the next step, not the repeal of the 17th amendment.

Do you have ANY CLUE why there was even a push for the 17th Amendment? What the rationale for it was?

Obviously not or you wouldn't blather on as you have. It wasn't about the "People" voting so much as it was an attempt to remove corruption and money from the process.

Wait for it...

Yes, it does help to actually understand WHY something like an amendment was passed before one starts talking about the effects of said amendment.

 

[Queen]

Do you have ANY CLUE why there was even a push for the 17th Amendment? What the rationale for it was?

Obviously not or you wouldn't blather on as you have. It wasn't about the "People" voting so much as it was an attempt to remove corruption and money from the process.

Wait for it...

Yes, it does help to actually understand WHY something like an amendment was passed before one starts talking about the effects of said amendment.

Yes, the teabaggers think it will strengthen states rights. Since it creates Senate seats being left empty for years on end, I can't see that making a State stronger. Obviously it didn't work. There was beacoup corruption in the appointing of senators. The richest men got the seats because they could buy them. If they could break the logjam in the state senate to even get through.

So it's a very stupid idea to do this again.

I'm an American. I like my vote. Don't try to take my vote away. Don't you dare.

 

[Queen]

Do you have ANY CLUE why there was even a push for the 17th Amendment? What the rationale for it was?

Obviously not or you wouldn't blather on as you have. It wasn't about the "People" voting so much as it was an attempt to remove corruption and money from the process.

Wait for it...

Yes, it does help to actually understand WHY something like an amendment was passed before one starts talking about the effects of said amendment.

Perhaps you should read my posts before making such a pompous statement. I put the quote by Mark Twain on the OP where he talked about the corruption.

Take more time to read before you post so your posts don't look so foolish.

 

[Crunch]

I fight by bringing issues like this to people's attention so more people can be aware of what's going on in the deep dark recesses of the teabaggers/Karl Rove/extremist/greedy scumbags plans.

If people become aware of how crazy teabaggers actually are, teabaggers will have less support and our country will be safer and more free. Give me liberty (and my vote) or give me death.

After you get dipped, always wipe your chin...... it's unsightly.

 

[Crunch]

Ah, yes. We were desperately in need of another hyperpartisan hack whose idea of intellectual debate is flinging epithets at all who disagree. You have arrived in the nick of time to save us from a fate worse than death: a dire shortage of shallow and frivolous posters.

Whew. What a relief. :roll:

:bravo: ......