Do you think this helps conservatives?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
2,061
Location
Oxford, MS
But take the power of electing senators away from We the Capitalist People? Why would we take a voting power the We the Capitalist People reclaimed and give it back to any government body (specifically in this case, state legislatures)?

TR would agree with you. Especially since it only focused the 'power' into the hands of the state political machine (and respective political bosses).
 

Glocktogo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
29,424
Reaction score
15,661
Location
Collinsville
Back on topic: Do you think this helps conservatives?

You guys need to cut out the political B.S. and answer the question.

Does it help conservatives or not?

Yes. Absolutely it does. Regardless, it's stupid and it shouldn't be done, no matter who it helps or hurts.

Woody, That's a lot of repealing you're talking about. What are the odds that you'll get that done?
Also, what's the problem with the people electing their senators directly? Aren't you robbing the people of an existing right to elect their own senators and giving that right to the STATE for political purposes? Doesn't that give more rights to the state?

Under the original COTUS/BoR, states were given that right because states rights were considered almost as important as the rights of The People. Effectively, The People robbed states of that right and repeal would return those stolen rights.
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
2,061
Location
Oxford, MS
Under the original COTUS/BoR, states were given that right because states rights were considered almost as important as the rights of The People. Effectively, The People robbed states of that right and repeal would return those stolen rights.

but weren't we just told states don't have rights? :blush:

By beyond that, i am not sold that it'd 'return those stolen rights' for two reasons. One, they weren't stolen, the process was changed under the prescribed system. And two, the system wasn't functioning as intended when the 17th was passed. The people elected as senators weren't beholden to the state, but to the people in charge of the party in control of the state, which was a big reason for the passage of the 17th IIRC.
 

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
32,828
Reaction score
45,808
Location
Tulsa
"Because it harms Trump" is not an argument against the constitutionality of the act.

Gonna have to leave you with that one because nobody relayed that position. This doesn't harm Trump, only helps IMO, it's just another example of TDS. I'm just questioning the discrimination and the slippery slope it employs.
 

donner

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
Messages
5,864
Reaction score
2,061
Location
Oxford, MS
I'm just questioning the discrimination

how does it discriminate? running for office isnt required and the law would (in theory) target everyone seeking ballot access equally. If a candidate doesn't want to release the records then they could either not run in that state or not run at all.

And i do agree, it targets trump. But that still doesn't mean it is illegal, though. Just because he is the only one who has chosen to take that stand doesn't mean that the law itself is discriminatory since it'd apply equally to anyone who took such a stand.
 
Last edited:

JD8

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
32,828
Reaction score
45,808
Location
Tulsa
how does it discriminate? running for office is neither required and would (in theory) target everyone seeking ballot access equally. If a candidate doesn't want to release the records then they could either not run in that state or not run at all.

Where is the financial status requirement laid out in The Constitution?
 

inactive

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,158
Reaction score
903
Location
I.T.
It's not vetting candidates based on financial status, but rather a financial disclosure. They can be rich or broke AF; all they have to do is produce a tax return.

Also it's NOT laid out in the Constitution, obviously. So thus it's a power (not a right, but a power, we've established) reserved for the States, no? Since really they're not obligated to have a primary in the first place (and some states like IA and NV still don't have a primary) and never did until 1920. They only exists as a function for political parties to determine their candidates; a candidate need not be a member of a party or in a primary or caucus to run for office.
 

ConstitutionCowboy

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
6,256
Reaction score
5,126
Location
Kingfisher County
But take the power of electing senators away from We the Capitalist People? Why would we take a voting power the We the Capitalist People reclaimed and give it back to any government body (specifically in this case, state legislatures)?

Right now we don't have a real senate. It is a second house of representatives. The state is a governing body democratically elected by the people of the state, and with the democratically elected state legislature appointing the senators, the senators will act in a fashion amenable to the state with its particular needs, mores, and resources.

I am, and have been all along, for repealing the 17th Amendment. Your state legislature would once again appoint your senators. For all intents and purposes, the Senate would no longer have a left wing nor a right wing. There’d be no senatorial campaigning; ergo, no “campaign contributions” coming from out-of-state interests.

Your state would have a voice in Congress, supporting and protecting your state’s sovereign powers(the Tenth Amendment).

There would be a check on the interests of certain parties that support governmental charity(commonly called “welfare”) to secure a voting block by placing a road block on such legislation on the national scale. A political party wishing to secure such a block of voters could not long support such a block when all those who earn money a state must confiscate(tax) to support that block move to a state where no such taxes exist. When a political party can move that support to the national level, people and businesses in all states are taxed and there is no state to move to to escape such taxes.

Repealing the 17th Amendment will restore competition between the several states, affording the people choices beyond climate and will force the able to support themselves and limit “welfare”(tax supported charity) to only the truly needy.

As for the states that had trouble appointing someone and leaving an empty seat for a time, who cares! If they were that indecisive to begin with, there would be no sense in sending in anyone in the first place until they CAN make up their minds!

As for the lobbyists having to “make the rounds” courting state legislators instead of hangin’ out in DC courting senators, I’m all for that!

The senators would have to answer directly to their individual state governments. Senators would be sent to DC with marching orders. I see no reason a state couldn’t recall an errant senator as well.

The people will always have their voice via the House of Representatives. With two houses of representatives, the several states have no voice.

Woody
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom