- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why aren't these conservative geniuses talking about repealing the 17th?
Posted on 8/2/17 at 9:41 am to 5thTiger
Posted on 8/2/17 at 9:41 am to 5thTiger
quote:
Why in the world is this board so obsessed with not letting citizens vote for their own Senators directly? You all bitch about corruption 24/7, yet you advocate for one of the most corrupt systems of election.
Is it because you think it will help you gain more Senators? Because if we did repeal the 17th, you know who would be gone? The Tea Party, Rand Paul, and all your other favorites. It would be the ultimate establishment picks.
This statement evidences your misunderstanding (or ignorance) regarding the importance of the pre-17th Amendment system.
Regardless of corruption or party (and there was plenty of each), the "old" system required the Senators to be answerable to the STATE GOVERNMENTS, not the citizenry. That's what the House was for.
The Constitution (the Founders) realized that all governments will naturally seek to aggrandize power, so one necessary check on the national government was to let the states have a DIRECT influence on the national government (by giving it a direct influence on legislation).
Do you honestly think there would be unfunded mandates, or all sorts of other impositions on state authority, by the national government if Senators had to answer to the governors/legislators of their states? Do you think that the tax system would be so incredibly weighted to the feds so that it is almost impossible for states to raise taxes, resulting in some of the current fiscal situations that exist (some of which are due to required state spending under federal law)?
Posted on 8/2/17 at 9:48 am to udtiger
quote:
This statement evidences your misunderstanding (or ignorance) regarding the importance of the pre-17th Amendment system
quote:
Regardless of corruption or party (and there was plenty of each), the "old" system required the Senators to be answerable to the STATE GOVERNMENTS, not the citizenry
quote:
The Constitution (the Founders) realized that all governments will naturally seek to aggrandize power, so one necessary check on the national government was to let the states have a DIRECT influence on the national government (by giving it a direct influence on legislation).
quote:
Do you honestly think there would be unfunded mandates, or all sorts of other impositions on state authority, by the national government if Senators had to answer to the governors/legislators of their states?
Yes.
quote:
Do you think that the tax system would be so incredibly weighted to the feds so that it is almost impossible for states to raise taxes, resulting in some of the current fiscal situations that exist (some of which are due to required state spending under federal law)?
Yes.
You all have an incredibly warped sense of history that you attempt to fit to your ideals. But its cool that you regurgitate the Allen Wests and Mike Huckabees of the world who have no fricking idea what they are talking about, but have the skill to talk and convince some that they do.
You all should study Congress prior to 1912. It is obvious that you have little to no understanding of how they actually operated.
Posted on 8/2/17 at 10:27 am to udtiger
quote:
Do you honestly think there would be unfunded mandates, or all sorts of other impositions on state authority, by the national government if Senators had to answer to the governors/legislators of their states? Do you think that the tax system would be so incredibly weighted to the feds so that it is almost impossible for states to raise taxes, resulting in some of the current fiscal situations that exist (some of which are due to required state spending under federal law)?
Yes. In fact it would be worse.
Sure some issues might be better, but the Senate would demand more money be sent to the states. Remember state governments (who would make the selections to the US Senate) don't pay taxes. They DO spend money.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News