In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck down large portions of the abomination known as...McCain-Feingold... [More]I'll bet we'd take a lot of influence money out of politics without the Seventeenth Amendment in play...and we'd be able to hold our local legislator's feet to the fire a lot more readily, not to mention diminish the urban socialist domination...
Quote: I'll bet we'd take a lot of influence money out of politics without the Seventeenth Amendment in play...
ReplyDeleteBlasphemy! Heretic! Terrorist! Violent radicalization! He's not with the program! He's a witch! Burn him!!!!
Oh David, how many Americans even know, off the top of their heads, what the Seventeenth Amendment is?
ReplyDeleteHow many know the Progressive origin of that amendment?
Delightful! First Massachusetts elects a Republican US Senator and now McCain gets kicked in the slats with this USSC decision.
ReplyDeleteThis has been a great week.
MALTHUS
another "good enough" result. eyes on the prize.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, the 17th Amendment replaced appointment of US Senators by state legislatures with a popular vote instead.
ReplyDeleteWe'd have Coakley heading for the Senate if the Massachusetts legislature had its way.
Are you sure you want to throw away the individual vote and let a bunch of politicians pick our Senators for us instead? That doesn't fly with me. Maybe you'd like Congress to pick the President for us too?
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.
"As I understand it, the 17th Amendment replaced appointment of US Senators by state legislatures with a popular vote instead.
ReplyDeleteWe'd have Coakley heading for the Senate if the Massachusetts legislature had its way."
Yes, but the senators (ALL OF THEM) would represent the state's interest not the people. The house would represent the people as would the individual state legislatures. This would mean that the states would choose senators based on what the people in each state district wanted. It would vastly improve not only the balance of power in the two federal houses but would also hold state legislators responsible. Additionally it would give far greater power to the congressmen in each district and make the federal government much more representative.
I can see how that might diminish the unfortunate and anti-freedom influence of urban areas such as Chicago or New York City, but I still don't believe in taking power away from individual citizens and handing it to corrupt politicians.
ReplyDeleteI don't want my state leftislature picking my US Senators.
I can accept the will of the people, even when it's wrong, but political appointments from above make me queasy at best, if not outright nauseated.
Chas, democracy, where the "individual" people decide all, all the time, was abhorrent to the individuals who pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to found the country whose remnants we find ourselves living amonst.
ReplyDeleteHistory proves that the tyranny of the majority is not the way to proceed.
Peaceable you got it, Chas, its supposed to be a republic, not a democracy, which truly is tyranny of the majority. The original intent was the senate to represent the states interest and the house was "the peoples house". Congress changed it in 1913, I think. The change makes it easier for politicians to buy votes by promising benefits from the treasury.
ReplyDeleteI remember amazing parties thrown for politicians by "special interests" (big corporations), with $1,000-a-plate buffets of "light appetizers" of filet mignon, lobster, caviar, etc., because gifting them with "meals" is prohibited, but heavy hors d'ouevres are allowed by law.
ReplyDeleteIn your face, American people!
Corporations are not "special interests," they are the other poisonous spider in the same big good ol' boy golf-buddy elitist web. "Special interests" means private citizen constitutionalists, freedom lovers, conservatives and libertarians coming together and organizing to multiply their voices.