Utah Senate Votes to Repeal 17th Amendment......

and you want that choice taken away from the people and for the state to do it?

 

To a certain extent, yes - both parties do it, but not until recently have we seen anything in modern times like what Repubs are doing and then followed that with a demand to overturn the 17th Amendment.

Sadly, yes, and those poor fools who support them either don't care, won't look, or believe the nonsense they are told.

 

What a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*)......Chicago and Cook County have been doing so for over 50 years. Oh and then check out what they did in Modern times. That would be those who you try and downplay for not intentionally being devious. Democrats.....aka the Weak and Meek.

 

So it is better in your eyes to have a monopolistic Federal dictatorship that the system of checks and balances that would ensure Federal accountability to the States and to the people?

I suppose as long as it supports your system of stealing and redistribution you would favor fascism over a true republic.

- - - Updated - - -

The people do not pick the Senators, the corporations do. Do you understand the system of checks and balances that the government was constructed under????

 

the people pick them by voting... unless republicans get their way

 

NO shame on you. Your ignorance of the intended system of checks and balances is shameful to anyone who is entrusted with the responsibilities of being a citizen.

 

Another shameful post. It was the industrial and banking cartel who were the money behind the 17th amendment and the Federal Reserve and Income Tax acts passed that same year.

The trio combined to institute a coup in which the wealthy took control over the Federal Government and abolished States rights, while simultaneously enslaving the American working class.

The lack of knowledge of our own history in this country by its citizens is an abomination. The slave owners in this country rule us not by force, but by our own stupidity and illiteracy.

- - - Updated - - -

You did not answer the question, was it over your head?

 

Lmao. Are you serious? Did you even have a point with this drivel? What's your counter?

The issue is money buying elections. This platry and idiotic venture does not stop the buying of politicians. If anything it just removes the right of the people from voting, and lets partisans choose regardless of those they represent; in a way, opening even more options for greed, villainy and misconduct/corruption.

 

Until the states are controlled by Dems and you would be stating otherwise.

So, you disagree with the Minor v. Happersett decision?

 

the founders set up a process to make changes.... do you not agree with them?

.

 

Yes I do it was wrong

Did you agree with Dred Scott ?

- - - Updated - - -

On the amendment process yes on many of the amendments no.

 

I neither agree or disagree with Dred Scot case since the case has been nullified by the 14th amendment.

 

Which was not properly ratified. The point is they backed slavery.

 

The 14th amendment was properly ratified, as well as the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th.

remember, the southern states seceded, and lost, and had to go through a period of readjustment before being allowed to reenter the Union. Therefore, the south not ratifying the amendment is a null and void argument.

 

The problem of the purchase of the government by corporations cannot be argued, but the fact remains that the problem began with the 3 laws passed in 1913 which gave banks and corporations the ability to enslave the people and to take all power away from the States in the control of the Federal Government.

The 17th amendment was part of a coup that stripped the States of their power to control the Senate which was intended to be their voice in government.

 

The 17th amendment was proposed and enacted because state legislatures could not decide on replacement senators - all the time. There was political deadlock.

Then of course, you have the issue of potential senators buying their way to the appointment, by simply paying off the state legislators.

It solves nothing and it does nothing to stop money buying elections, and citizens united is directly behind that issue.

 

The 17th amendment was proposed to take the States power. It was part one of three pieces of legislation which transferred power over the Federal government from the people and the States, to the bankers and the industrialists. Without States control of the Senate, the wealthy owned 2/3rds of government, and could effectively control all legislation. Are your really naïve enough to believe they were acting in your best interests? LOL

 

I am all for it myself. Let the Govenors choose the upper and the people choose the lower. While they are about it enact some term limits on the House. Get rid of career politicians all the way around

 

http://www.barefootsworld.net/14uncon.html

 

Haven't seen the TEA Party people asking for this but it could be that your local TEA Party is.

The Austin political scene is the most corrupt and inept in the state because they are the most liberal in the state. The Austin DAs, who I had dealings with in the late 70s, is more concerned about prosecuting Republicans than they are about prosecuting violent crimes. This last case where the drunken DA went after Perry because he had the nerve to ask her to resign after she was arrested for DWI is a great example of the way the Austin liberals abuse their power. The way they have shoved light rail down the throats of the people is another.
I had a great time in Austin in the 70s. I was a hippy boy with very fast cars and I worked at the Chrysler dealership so I had everything that I needed to work on my cars. Every time I drive down 35 now at 10AM I remember that in 74 we were having hell making the Highway Patrol cars run 110MPh with the new low emissions engines. The older cars would run 150+MPH so the new cars were driving the guys crazy. I was the one that rebuilt the carburetors to get more speed and I would test drive them out on the unfinished stretch of loop 1. I would get on loop 1 at Beecaves Road and go as fast as the car would run back to Lamar and then back to the shop. One day the Chrysler factory man wanted to drive one that I had worked on so we went down to IH35 and he drove all the way the Ben White at about 10AM and never got under 100MPH. It was pretty easy to drive from Austin to San Antonio in 45 minutes at night on IH 35 in those days.

 

Except that Article V of the US Constitution also says this

The link you are providing only suggests that only the states can make amendments to the Constitution, which is not the case. If Congress, passed by 2/3 of both Houses, passes an amendment to the Constitution and then passes 2/3 of the state legislature houses, then the amendment has passed Constitutional muster.

 

Interesting, how about a DA who had to check herself into a mental hospital for 30 days, did not let her staff know, and kept the mental issue away from the public both before and during the time she was having mental issues. Would you call that a case where the DA should step down?

 

Wait...so you would prefer to NOT have elections for the Senate?

You'd rather "someone" appoint them based on cronyism?

 

I prefer State legislatures appoint senators for their six year terms.

 

But it did not

None of the southern states had representative governments.