Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Do you think this helps conservatives?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ConstitutionCowboy" data-source="post: 3257049" data-attributes="member: 745"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>Your state would have a voice in Congress, supporting and protecting your state’s sovereign powers(the Tenth Amendment).</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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 <em>CAN</em> make up their minds!</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>The people will always have their voice via the House of Representatives. With two houses of representatives, the several states have no voice.</p><p></p><p>Woody</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ConstitutionCowboy, post: 3257049, member: 745"] 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 [I]CAN[/I] 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 [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Do you think this helps conservatives?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom