Senator Nelson traded his beliefs that we thought were strongly held - against abortion - to help his state of Nebraska with the new burdens of ObamaCare. His governor told him Obama would hurt Nebraska and he acted. Gregoire? Is she back from Copenhagen?
Attorney General McKenna is on the job; he is covering his area of responsibility - the law. It is legal/constitutional to put obvious favors for a few states - Mass., Louisiana, Nebraska - into a law?
"The arrangement that requires Washington state taxpayers, and those around the country, to permanently pay Nebraska's additional Medicaid costs carries a price tag of untold millions," McKenna said. "It raises key constitutional questions about whether residents of certain states should receive special privileges, based on the deal-making skills of their senators. I look forward to working with Attorney General Henry McMaster and other colleagues in researching the constitutionality of such a provision."HT: Orbusmax Posted by Ron Hebron at December 24, 2009 07:39 AM | Email This
I second the kudos to McKenna. Others AG's will follow suit and this back alley wheeling and dealing by the corrupt democrat party will end up backfiring on them.
Posted by: Rick D. on December 24, 2009 07:59 AM16 January 1854, In debate, Senator Archibald Dixon of Kentucky suggests an ammendment to the bill that would formally repeal the Missouri Compromise. On the 17th Senator Charles Sumner of Massachuettes also suggests the ammendment.
Once a Democrap, always a Democrap, like Thomas Jefferson explained to perfection the upcoming Civil War, of 1861 thru 1865, way back in 1820!
Where exactly did these people go to school at?
The American Civil War, The Missouri Compromise
"Like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once
as the death knel of the Union. It is hushed indeed for a moment. But this is a repreive only, not the final sentance. A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principal, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irratation will mark it deeper and deeper."
Thomas Jefferson to John Holmes, Monticello, April 22 1820
This is what happens when you elect imbeciles to office, like the school teacher from Washington, who assisted in leaving your children behind for generations!
Posted by: Liberty Bell on December 24, 2009 08:48 AMThis will tie Health Insurance Reform up in court and delay its implementation at least beyond next year and maybe a few years beyond that. The opposition is lawyering up. Not only might the Nebraska favor be unconstitutional, but also other bribes that occurred in the Senate and the penalty for not purchasing Health Insurance.
Posted by: KDS on December 24, 2009 09:08 AMSecession from the union is not the answer though, not even for Texas. There will be a battle on this piece of excrement legislation fought in the Supreme Court over its Constitutionality in multiple aspects. That will begin if and when this bill is signed.
Posted by: KDS on December 24, 2009 09:33 AMAssuming it is unconstitutional, this also won't matter, since all legislation has a section which states that if any part is ruled unconstitutional, the rest still stands. This is standard legislative CYA.
The Dems fought hard, played dirty, and won. This will or won't matter come next November. It won't change my vote since I never intended to vote for them anyway.
Posted by: deadwood on December 24, 2009 09:49 AMCall Cantwell and and ask her why we didn't the same deal.
Posted by: Kennewick Man on December 24, 2009 11:52 AM
The House is supposed to pass bills representative of the will of the majority of the people as dispersed across our country. You would expect bills unfair to the states to emerge from that body, not the other way around.
It's a sad testament that our two senators would vote to pass a bill that helps other states at the expense of ours. They obviously don't represent our state or our interests. Throw the bums out.
The same goes for any representative that contradicts the will of their district.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on December 24, 2009 12:36 PMThe Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Nebraska and Louisiana get their Medicaid fully paid by the Federal Government, but the other States (including California facing an $8 billion a year annual bill) get to pay. So much for that word "uniform".
Of course, what do you expect from a bunch of liars and thieves who used fraudulent accounting to sell the idea this would actually cut the deficit. Liars and thieves, looking to tighten the chains around our necks...
So much for a Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 24, 2009 02:49 PMShanghai Dan is correct, this is unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 8 clauses requiring all duties, imposts and excises to be uniform.
However, Article 1, Section 8 also explicitly enumerates the 16 powers granted to the Congress and we all know how strictly those are being followed. I saw a video of Pelosi laughing at somebody's question about the constitutionality of Congress establishing a national healthcare system.
Even if this is not constitutional, it is unlikely that the courts will strike it down simply because it isn't dealing with individual rights.
If I were McKenna, I would be filing a lawsuit: The State of Washington v. The United States, the second Obama puts pen to paper. It is his duty to defend our state in this way. I'm no fan of McKenna, but if he steps up, he will sway my opinion of him considerably for the better.
Posted by: blindman on December 24, 2009 03:06 PMPrior to the 17th amendment, most senators were chosen by their state's legislatures or governor. A few states had chosen to make their senators popularly elected but they were few and far between.
When senators were chosen by state legislatures, the states themselves were the most powerful special interests in the federal government. After the 17th amendment, we instantly got senators from Standard Oil, senators from Bethlehem Steel, senators from Microsoft, senators from the SEIU/AFL-CIO...you get my point. As soon as senators had to wage state-wide elections, they became an asset for sale to the highest bidder.
I think the 17th amendment is the clearest example of one amendment that didn't turn out so well that we haven't already repealed.
He is not on the side of individual liberty and property rights.
Posted by: Kato on December 24, 2009 08:58 PMPerry never began to secede. He never suggested Texas should secede or that he wanted it to. He mentioned it as a possibility, if Texas were pushed far enough by the federal government.
The Founders saw the need to protect the integrity of these distinct areas of jurisdiction. They knew that a national government would not be capable of properly fulfilling all the legitimate functions of civil authority.(Federalist No. 17, pp. 118-119)
They felt that state representation in the national government would act as a check against usurpation of state power by the General Government. It was believed that a Senate elected by the state legislatures would provide this necessary check. In an explanation of the necessity of instituting this mode of election,
Mr. John Dickinson cited the exigency of the influence of the states within the national government.
"The preservation of the States in a certain degree of agency [within the national government] is indispensable. It will produce that collision between the different authorities which should be wished for in order to check each other."(Madison, Notes of Debates, p. 84.)
He emphasized that barring the state governments from direct participation in the national government would tend toward destructive centralization and accordingly warned:
"If the State Governments were excluded from all agency in the national one, and all power drawn from the people at large, the consequence would be that the national Government would move in the same direction as the State Governments now do, and would run into all the same mischiefs. The reform would only unite the 13 small streams into one great current pursuing the same course without any opposition whatever."(Madison, Notes of Debates, p. 84-85).
In order to guard the federal structure, it was important that the states be represented in the national government and equally as important that all the legislative power not be drawn immediately from the people. The logical means to accomplish both of these objectives was to allow the state legislatures to elect Senators. This would ensure the federal character of the national government and would be a safeguard against the development of merely a national consciousness devoid of state loyalties.
That the debates over the method of senatorial election were indissolubly linked to the issue of the relationship between the General Government and the state governments is evinced in numerous statements similar to Mr. Dickinson's. In a discussion over this subject, Mr. Oliver Ellsworth said: "The only chance of supporting a General Government lies in engrafting it on that of the individual States."(Madison, Notes of Debates, p. 190)
In view of the unanimous decision that Senators be elected by their state legislatures, it is clear that the Senators were thought of, somewhat, as ambassadors. Mr. Dickinson communicated this when he said that one of the reasons for his motion was "because the sense of the States would be better collected through their Governments; than immediately from the people at large."(Madison, Notes of Debates, p. 82) Senators were to be representatives of their states as states, to guard and protect their respective spheres of jurisdiction. The text of the debates reveal indisputably that this was an important consideration in determining the method of election.
Summery....in the senate right now as it is we have 2 house of representatives the senators are now super representatives that do not listen to their state governments at all... that was a important CHECK against both the house of representatives AND the executive branch of the federal government and today that important CHECK between the states and feds is completely missing .
my 2 cents... support HJM4009 state Sovereignty, and any efforts to repeal the 17th amendment.
Posted by: Kennewick Man on December 25, 2009 09:04 PMThat was the beauty of the system; the Founders recognized everyone would be out for themselves, so the simplicity and beauty of the system was that each of the powers - the People, the States and the Federal Government - would have their own say.
You are concerned about corruption of Senators, yet that is exactly what we have now; with the pre-17th situation, at least, those Senators would be beholden to interests within the State, as their position is completely dependent upon the will and whim of the State Government.
Now we have a situation where Senators are beholden to other special interests, including those out of State. Money for general elections becomes a big driver of the focus of the Senators, not the goals or best interests of the State or people therein. Special interests are no longer at least located within the State that appointed the Senator, but typically out-of-State.
The 17th was a bad amendment, as it broke a significant balance the Founders put in place. It is no surprise that the massive expansion of the Federal Government started only after the 17th Amendment was enacted. This amendment eliminated the voice of the States, and it's no wonder that the Federal Government moved in as quickly as possible to fill that void.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 26, 2009 07:07 AMIt would seem to me that the exact same argument should be used against this bill. There are parts that must be thrown out due to constitutional issues. Therefore the entire bill should be tossed because congress must be able to vote on the package as a whole, and may not have approved a multi-part deal unless all the parts were in place.
Posted by: Seabecker on December 26, 2009 07:13 AMThe 17th amendment was an improvement over having the corrupt few/Legislators having the only say over who will represent the State and the People...Plain and Simple!
Your position that blames a good deal of the expansion of the Federal Government by the Senators being elected by the People is seriously Wrong. The Truth is, Government whether, it's Federal, State or local, all want to expand continuously and it is certainly not the fault of the People deciding who their State Senators will be.
If AG McKenna is interested in looking at constitutional case law as a means to derail Nelson's little game, that's fine by me. However, no one here has made any reasonable case that this is unconstitutional.
Posted by: demo kid on December 26, 2009 09:10 AMYeah. Because you're soooooo much smarter than the state attorney general, as well as the other state AGs looking at this.
Got that, Rob? Demo Kid says to not waste your time. Why? Because he says so. And that's all you need to know.
Go away.
Posted by: jimg on December 26, 2009 09:18 AMEven so, special interest whether, they are within the State or outside the State are still for their particular interest which has nothing to do with the State or the People.
Bolded words added. You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Bottom Line:..You are Wrong in stating that the Senators were limited and beholden to interest within the State with the pre-17th situation.
And I contend you are wrong...;) See, would Maria Cantwell care about keeping her financial backers in California happy if she was appointed by the State Legislature? I contend she'd be less swayed by non-Washington interests than those inside-Washington.
ASIDE: and note that the Senator would answer to the people, as the Legislature that appointed said Senator was directly elected by the populace; if we didn't like Patty Murray as an appointed Senator, then you can vote for State representatives that would oppose her return to the Senate
Special or not, the Senator is to consider their State first; as is, Senators can be purchased from outside interest groups. There's a reason Ben Nelson caved to Harry Reid, and it's not the will of the State. It's the will of those who paid for his election campaign, most likely out-of-State groups who funneled a lot of cash his way.
But for the ultimate proof that you're wrong, I will simply point to the system set up by the Founders of these United States. It was set up for a reason, and we're tampering with a system that worked very well for 120+ years. Look at when the Federal Government really began expanding power in earnest - was it pre-1911 or post-1911?
Having Senators bought-and-sold like Representatives broke the system.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 26, 2009 09:24 AMCan you show a case where taxes are NOT collected from one State to pay for another? Something that is not tied to population or commerce activity?
If not then this is a clear violation of the equal protection clause.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 26, 2009 09:27 AMWhat a goddamned idiot you are. Read what I wrote. It seems like the brain trust on (u)SP can't make a constitutional argument to save their lives, and can't even make a decent point about it.
With respect to McKenna, he in fact didn't even mention what he thought was "unconstitutional" about the bill itself, just what he thought was unfair. If he wants to look at constitutional case law to find a way to get this specific part of the bill overturned, more power to him. I don't like these kinds of back deals either.
But ranting on and on about "constitutionality" when it's obvious that the folks here have no idea what that means... well... it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
First of all, just for the record, Nebraska isn't the only state that will receive additional Medicaid assistance. Massachusetts will also receive that same assistance as well, among others. Given that those two Senate votes are hardly in doubt, this issue is better framed as a NUMBER of states getting a better deal than others, rather than some kind of "payoff".
Second, there are differences in the allocation of federal funds to different states all the time. Homeland Security Grants to states, for example, are a prime example of a transfer of funds from the federal government to the state governments that are not completely dependent on economic activity and population.
Now, equal protection does not apply here because this isn't a case where the federal government is treating individual citizens differently under the law. Uniform taxation doesn't apply here because the taxation is NOT uneven. Smaller elements of constitutional case law may apply, and I think it's a good thing for McKenna to challenge this. However, broad principles of the Constitution have not been violated.
Do I agree that this isn't "fair"? Sure! The burden should be allocated as evenly as possible, and some states getting a free pass isn't reasonable. Do I think that they should challenge it in court? Sure! I actually think that as well.
However, you (and the others) have not made the case that this is unconstitutional from what you've said here.
Posted by: demo kid on December 26, 2009 09:51 AMNote how demo kid was enjoying his Christmas, and then had to come back here. It wasn't a choice, no, he's a victim. He had to come back here. Probably some right wing nut held a gun to his head, and made him point his browser back to www.soundpolitics.com Yep, that's it.
So, now he ends up back here where there are other people living within the first amendment that challenge the views that keep him safely inside the cocoon he normally inhabits, and he's really offended and surprised. Imagine that, opposing views being expressed. There ought to be a law against that, because demo kid was yanked from his otherwise enjoyable time to have to battle such tyranny.
Well, good thing you are back to show us all demo kid. Impress us with your brilliance. Where would we be without you.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 26, 2009 10:06 AMMaria Cantwell/Patty Murray would not that be so easily removed by voting for the Representatives that would remove them. Most of the Legislators are Democrats anyway and put there by a Democrat leaning populace. So Big Deal...Big Nothing! Plus, Maria Cantwell or any other dishonest Senator will be swayed by the Biggest Offer whether, it was outside the State or inside the State...PERIOD! Let alone, the special interests are for their own gain and it has nothing to do whether, they reside in or out of State. How Ridiculous for you to think that it would.
All Governments expand exponentially. Which means as the ball begins to roll it continues to get bigger and roll faster and faster. For you to think the 17th amendment helped speed up the ball is wrongful thinking. It is natural for Government to expand at an increasing pace with the passage of time. Look at History of the rise and fall of Empires.
I am NO LIBERAL. you my friend are on the wrong side of the argument , corruption is going to be there either way , Do we have a choice of what kind of corruption we want Local or FEDERAL ? , I would think the LOCAL CORRUPTION would be more likely to benefit LOCAL people , unlike the corruption we have now that supports the executive branch of Washington DC. Corruption can be curbed by taking interest in who you elect
Our Senators don't represent you or me or the state right now , they are bought by the highest bidder that can feed them the money they need to be reelected , by people that are not informed , people that are herded to the polls by Accorn ( surprise a Progressive group ) do you really think our senators care what you or I think ? the house is made for this kind of corruption , the senate is for the other kind of corruption .. and they should check each other, tie their hands and keep each other out of our lives , I would rather have them fighting each other every day in gridlock then have them so deep into my life right now .. Look where healthcare would be now if states couldn't field enough senators to vote on heath care.... CHECK .. wow !!! and BALANCE !!!
Direct elections of Senators ... allowed Washington DC's special interests to call the shots, whether it is filling judicial vacancies, passing laws, or issuing regulations PERIOD
All these men were SURPRISE!!... LIBERALS and put forth the 17th amendment...
George William Norris (July 11, 1861 - September 2, 1944) was a U.S. leader of progressive and liberal causes in Congress supports 17th amendment (Wikipedia)
Robert Marion La Follette, Sr. Republican Senator from Wisconsin (1906-1925). He ran for President of the United States as the nominee of his own Progressive Party in 1924, supported 17th amendment (Wikipedia)
William Randolph Hearst (April 29, 1863 - August 14, 1951) was an American newspaper magnate and leading newspaper publisher. He was twice elected as a Democrat to the U.S. House of Representatives, a prominent leader of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party from 1896 to 1935 supported 17th amendment (Wikipedia)
David Graham Phillips (October 31, 1867 - January 24, 1911) was an American journalist and novelist. (Wikipedia) Wrote for hurst about all the corruption in the senate .. I think he could do the same thing right now. (Wikipedia)
Joseph Little Bristow (July 22, 1861-July 14, 1944) was an American Republican politician from Kansas. edited several newspapers in Salina, Kansas (Wikipedia) ( here we go with another Press guy )
William Edgar Borah (June 29, 1865 - January 19, 1940) United States Senator from Idaho Borah was a progressive Republican who often had strong differences of opinion with the conservative wing of the party. supported 17th amendment (Wikipedia)
These people are not attorneys, nor are you and furthermore, who gives a shit what you think besides you ? I'd like to read or hear Bill Handel's take on this. Suppose we ask you to prove it falls totally within the bounds of;
US Constitution Article 1 Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
you would be squealing that you can't prove that it doesn't violate this part of the Constitution and give the construct that you won't waste your time with it. Not to mention the fact that you are a serial liar.
I'd submit that you are using that as a crutch and that you resort to calling names and making assertions and using the tactic of swiftboating those who disagree with you to make your case and you have no case. That is a vacuous argument and you are taunting without anything of substance to back it up, like the jackhole that you are. You are also an ignorant fool if you believe the public will accept this subjugation legislation without big time consequences occurring in future elections.
Posted by: KDS on December 26, 2009 11:07 AM1) What do you think is the optimal size of government? Why?
2) Should we trust the people (as expressed through their democratically-elected representatives, however imperfectly) to modify the size of government, or is there a better way (and why is that better than democracy)?
3) Is it conceivable that government has grown because, as civilization has progressed, societies have decided that they are happier with larger government? Is it possible we just haven't found the optimal size yet?
4) You speak of the rise and fall of empires, but what does that have to do with the size of government? Are you suggesting that the size of government can rise and fall too, and if so, doesn't that contradict your thesis?
Posted by: Bruce on December 26, 2009 11:20 AMBut I mean, c'mon. When idiots like Taliban Dan can post overcapitalizing, nonsensical rants and call people "liberals" just because they just aren't a goddamned crazy as he is... I think the party's over. This is nothing but a wingnut whine party now, and I've moved on to much better targets. Nothing wrong with kicking the hornets' nest on occasion, though.
@52-53: The sheer idiocy of arguing that the 17th Amendment brought anything other than a more democratic system is astounding. You might as well be proposing that backroom deals to nominate candidates for office were better for the people than primaries and caucuses. Powerful interests will always try to influence government officials, and there's no proof that the direct election of Senators would make a lick of difference.
But hey, that's not the topic of the thread, and, more importantly... how precisely do you think a difference in electing Senators would have changed Nelson's move? Funny enough, Massachusetts got a similar deal, and Senator Kirk was appointed by the Massachusetts state legislature.
@54-55: I'm not asking that people provide a brief so that they can argue before the Supreme Court. What the peanut gallery here thinks matters for less than nothing though, since they can't seem to get their points straight. What I'm saying is that while you might be able to reference case law to overturn this as McKenna suggests, but there is nothing in the broad principles of the Constitution that would make this "unconstitutional". I mean, seriously... what about a grant from the federal to the state government is a "duty", "tax", "impost" or "excise"? What about equal protection of *individuals* under the law applies to the relationship between the federal government and the states? These are easy questions, and you're giving answers that aren't relevant.
And stop calling me a liar if you can't make your points on your own.
If you don't want to be separated from your naive, yet comforting isolation, then don't come here.
And keep from enjoying your naive but comforting isolation? Please. Stop being a twit.
But hey... why actually debate when you can just whine about nothing, right? The fact that you can't even speak to the substantive parts of what I wrote proves my point more than anything else.
Posted by: demo kid on December 26, 2009 01:34 PM"Gregoire? Is she back from Copenhagen?" Yes.
BTW, how's South Carolina's fight to get the The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 declared unconstitutional going?
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on December 26, 2009 01:40 PMIf this ObamaCare thing gets finalized and passed, it will be tied up in court for a long time and what it looks like after that is anybody's guess. My hope is that the knife is driven in so deep by the courts that there has to be a restart that actually analyzes what is actually wrong with the system as it is, see what is clearly wrong with other "universal" systems world-wide (and there are plenty of examples) and then simply initiate those fixes the American way avoiding the pitfalls of the French, Canadian, British, Swedish, German, etc. way.
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 26, 2009 02:08 PMBack at ya. Stop calling people idiots and the like unless you can prove conclusively that they are wrong. You can't do that, truthfully or otherwise. Until the SCOTUS concludes their ruling (if it comes that), it is only conjecture. This post can probably be closed off.
You are just floating your own opinions, which like a$$holes, everyone has one. When you state anything of substance, I'll be glad to engage you in a debate and expose the opposing view substantiated with facts if warranted. Some have already done this in my view, but you can't accept it without going hyperbolic.
One other point, earlier stated by Pudge. IF the bill is signed into law and parts of it are deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, those portions will be stricken from the law and the remaining bill will remain intact.
Posted by: KDS on December 26, 2009 02:57 PMI see you're up to your usual "fingers in the ears shouting obscenities" routine. So much for useful discussion...
Daniel,
Simply put - when the Senators were appointed by the States, the Senators had most of their allegiance to the State. Now that Senators are popularly elected - and need to raise funds from all over - they are beholden to those who pay them the most. Often that is out-of-state interests.
I'd rather my Senators be influenced, led, and - if corrupted, corrupted - by Washington State interests, not those of California, or New York, or other States.
And you still have not addressed the fact that the power of the Federal Government really didn't start to explode until after the 17th Amendment was ratified; the States lost a significant say in the governing of these United States, and that was replaced by the Federal Government.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 26, 2009 03:01 PM"If this ObamaCare thing gets finalized and passed ..."
If???
Germane to this post, there shall be a Health Care Reform Act passed that looks a lot like the Senate bill that just passed on December 24th, and it shall contain the Nebraska favor.
It shall not include provisions for tort reform or other Republican conservative proposals.
Why? Because despite the Democrats having significant majorities in both houses of Congress to carry forward their agenda without Republican votes, the Republican party in Washington DC decided not to negotiate and work in good faith to improve upon a bill which would ultimately pass and become law.
If Health Reform as passed turns out to be a disaster, then perhaps Republicans shall have a political come back in 2010. If, however, the HCR, as bad as it is with the Nebraska favor and other log rolling provisions delivers anything politically tangible, the prospect of a Republican Congress in 2011 approaches nil.
As Frum said a little while back "The furious rejectionist frenzy of the past 12 months is exacting a terrible price upon Republicans. We're getting worse and less conservative results out of Washington than we could have negotiated, if we had negotiated. Even if we gain seats in 2010, the actions of this congressional session will not be reversed. Shrink Medicare after it has expanded? Hey- we said we'd never do that.
I hear a lot of talk about the importance of "principle." But what's the principle that obliges us to be stupid?"
So, instead of better legislation in the wake of a monstrous political loss in 2008, the leading Republican candidate for WA Governor in 2012 attempts to curry favor with WINGNUTIA by voicing amorphous concerns about the bill's constitutionality and pledging to "research" it.
And when this all does not go well for Republicans . . . . nobody could have predicted.
Oops -- pardon me for bringing up the topic of this thread.....
Posted by: Bruce on December 26, 2009 03:48 PMNo! Not at all... Senators and Representatives are to consider the best interests of their States. Why should most States pay extra relative to a few, based upon the political need of other Senators to get a bill passed? And unconstitutional actions are still unconstitutional, meaning less activist Government.
Yes, that might have killed Obamacare, but that would be a good thing. Divided Government is usually good Government, and having power shared by the People, the States, and the Federal Government equally is IMHO preferable to having a 1/3rd People to 2/3rds Federal Government that we're reaching...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 26, 2009 06:55 PMThe 17th amendment may be a pet peeve of far-right ideologues like you (and I encourage you to add its repeal to the already wildly popular Republican platform), but in an alternative universe without it, backroom deals like the Nebraska favor would be more, not less, common.
Details, please.
Anyway, good luck with that, and when you get feedback be sure to let us know how it goes!
You seem to be very passionate about the 17th amendment. You have repeatedly stated that history has proven the 17th amendment was the right move and yet you have not cited any specific references. Kennewick Man did a pretty bang up job demolishing your position with cited references to explain why senators were originally selected by the state legislatures.
I would like for you to reply here with some citations about the specific kinds of corruption that led to the 17th amendment's adoption. If we had specific examples, that would be enlighten this discussion.
Shanghai Dan is correct about Maria Cantwell being backed by California money. I worked for a small company in Santa Monica a year ago and my old boss hosted a $1,000/seat fundraiser for her in his back yard during the summer of 2008. He lives in Beverly Hills.
Since the reasoning of the founding fathers doesn't seem to sway you. Let me try out a little mental exercise. You keep stressing that a directly elected senator best serves the will of the people. I don't know about you, but I personally know my state legislator and senator. They only live a few miles from me and I can drive down to their house, knock on their door and talk with them pretty much any time I want. In fact, my state legislator is my old boss from a high school summer job I used to have. If he was one of the legislators responsible for selecting our state's senator, my access to him would give me considerably more power over the decision making process than if I was just another vote on a ballot.
Since I don't regularly attend $1,000/seat fund raisers in Beverly Hills, I have an infinitesimally small say on Maria Cantwell's election or her policies. I like the idea of me being able to cultivate a relationship with my state legislator and be included in a more intimate discussion over the selection of our senators. It makes the state legislature elections much more interesting and important.
Now back to the point about this post. I think we should clear some stuff up. First of all the Nebraska deal was about Medicaid, which is paid for by federal and state money. The percentage that the federal government pays is different for each state because it is calculated from the average incomes of each state and the nation as a whole. See here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/fmap10.htm for the 2010 percentages.
What Ben Nelson did was negotiate a deal whereby the federal government will pay 100% of the medicaid bill in Nebraska. Because this is a tweak of the spending side of medicaid, it is not unconstitutional.
The constitution only stipulates that all taxes are uniform, but it says nothing about federal spending. If federal spending had to be uniform, then smaller states would get many more dollars per square mile than larger states. The amount spent on the interstate highway in Delaware is a lot less than the amount spend on the interstate highway in Texas simply because Delaware is just a fraction of the size of Texas.
It feels like this kind of deal must be unconstitutional simply because it favors one state over the others in a spending program paid for by payroll taxes (it's the FICA line on your paycheck). But like I said before, federal domestic spending is necessarily non-uniform simply because the states are non-uniform.
I think what we're seeing now from the state AG's is their effort to sue themselves into a better deal. Medicaid payments have been notoriously damaging to state budgets...I'm looking at you California. State's like California would do well to twist some arms in washington to secure similar deals. As of 2000, California's medicaid bill was $16.7 billion. If the Federal government were to pick up that tab, then California's current $21 billion deficit would almost vanish.
So, the Nebraska deal is probably not unconstitutional, but I would bet that the way medicaid is paid for wouldn't have happened if we hadn't enacted the 17th amendment.
Posted by: blindman on December 26, 2009 08:14 PMI am not convinced that the Nebraska deal, nor the $300B Louisiana Purchase are not unconstitutional either.(It smells like a 5-4 vote), if this goes forward into law. If so, it may not go to the SCOTUS until after the 2010 elections.
Posted by: KDS on December 26, 2009 09:53 PMDk , we live in a Republic or we use to before the 17th amendment , now we teeter on tyranny its sheer idiocy to think otherwise , some of us would like to be free again and not have big daddy government in our lives so much ... yea I think sheer idiocy is kind of rough to state in a civil recourse ... oh well ..."if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be" (Ford, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10:4
DK stated: "Powerful interests will always try to influence government officials, and there's no proof that the direct election of Senators would make a lick of difference."
I think Blindman covered that quite well #69
As far as on topic or off topic, the feds healthcare bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL all of it... the Federal Governments few responsibilities are listed out clearly and defind clearly and very limited. Everything else is left to the states and the people I will quote it here incase you aren't clear on what I mean
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
General Welfare defined
Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [#57 DK stated "The sheer idiocy of arguing that the 17th Amendment brought anything other than a more democratic system is astounding. You might as well be proposing that backroom deals to nominate candidates for office were better for the people than primaries and caucuses.
Dk , we live in a Republic or we use to before the 17th amendment , now we teeter on tyranny its sheer idiocy to think otherwise , some of us would like to be free again and not have big daddy government in our lives so much ... yea I think sheer idiocy is kind of rough to state in a civil recourse ... oh well ..."if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be" (Ford, Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10:4
DK stated: "Powerful interests will always try to influence government officials, and there's no proof that the direct election of Senators would make a lick of difference."
I think Blindman covered that quite well #69
As far as on topic or off topic, the feds healthcare bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL all of it... the Federal Governments few responsibilities are listed out clearly and defind clearly and very limited. Everything else is left to the states and the people I will quote it here incase you aren't clear on what I mean
Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
General Welfare defined
Welfare
welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [
Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.
Warnings against the "welfare State"
Jefferson wrote
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy "(Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 10:342.)
Warnings against confiscatory taxation and deficit spending.
Jefferson wrote
"We shall all consider ourselves unauthorized to saddle posterity with our debts, and morally bound to pay them ourselves; and consequently within what may be deemed the period of a generation, or the life [expectancy] of the majority." (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 13:358.)
Every generation of Americans struggled to pay off the national debt up until the present one.
Samuel Adams said.
"The utopian schemes of leveling [re-distribution of the wealth] and a community of goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [these ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional." (William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, 3 Vols 1865, v1 p 154)
as for the founders they understood human nature and the nature of governments on a deeper level than probably anyone in government now or back in the 1900's when the 16th and 17th were passed.... They had a lot more common sense and weren't pushing an agenda like all of these progressives we had then or have today. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin and Washington you would be hard pressed to name an equal to any of them save Lincoln
"Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding. And should therefore be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties, which may make anything mean everything or nothing, at pleasure.... The states supposed that by their 10th amendment they had secured themselves against constructive powers. They were not ... Yet...aware of the slipperiness of the eels of law. I ask for no straining of words against the general government, nor yet against the states. I believe the states can best govern our home concerns, and the general government our foreign ones. I wish , therefore to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market "
(Thomas Jefferson, Bergh 15:448 written 1823)
Wow kind of sounds like what we have going on now with the buying off of senators ... FINALLY I am on topic the senators main offices are in DC and behind close doors they are bought and sold as if in open market ... maybe that's because they are no longer beholden to the states ? But to their election campaigns with out of state contribution ... humm ....
I have had a good time researching and discussing the 17th amendment here its really sad so many of us these days were not taught or even take the time to understand what the founders knew......... WHY the senate was set up the way it was , nor why gridlock in the federal government was by design and a good thing , not something flawed or a mistake to be fixed... fixed just so government can grow more powerful more efficient at the peoples expense ... at freedoms expense..
Gridlock/checks between branches to protect the freedom of the common American citizen. That's what it's all about and that's what's missing right now.
The electoral college contributes to political stability and the peaceful transfer of power by creating landslides. It we switched to a direct popular vote, there would be statistical ties nearly every election with months and moths of court battles decided who will be president. See see our 2004 gubernatorial election and last year's MN senate election as examples of what our presidential elections would devolve to.
Direct election by the people isn't always the best way to go. Messing with the constitution to move in that direction breaks some fundamental design features. I see the healthcare bill as the culmination of that tinkering and loose interpretation of the constiution.
Heck, the entire culture was started when the massive centralization of government started under Wilson. As soon as you have to fit everybody into one mold, everybody will fight tooth and nail to make sure that the other guy has to live the way they live. This best describes the "progessives" of the last century and the religious right run GOP of the past 15 years. As soon as the GOP switchd from big tent libertarianism to Christian totalitarianism they ceased to be relavent and they are now being punished for it. The current liberal government isn't a mandate from the people to march to the progressive tine, it is a repudiation of the GOP for ditching their centrist, freedom agenda.
The founding fathers secured thier religious freedom by explicitly separating it from government and curtailing government control over private personal choices. The GOP was run out of Washington because they added religiously motivated regulation of intimate personal matters a major plank in their platform. This healthcare bill is hugely unpopular mainly because it regulates what most people consider a personal matter. I expect a major rejection of the democrats in the 2010 election.
The political pendulum is swinging wildly because neither party is in line with the political center of America. The GOP used to be there and they could again if they would just rethink their platform in terms of liberty instead of tyrrany.
The GOP could easily steal the gay marriage issue if they switched to a position of deregulating marriage. They would secure the traditional religious marriage by separating it completely from the government while at the same time create a uniform legal framework for all couples to secure their families through legal union. I imagine it could be as simple as a legal contract that says "check all that apply" with a list of things like: shared power of attorney, shared legal/tax liability, shared custody of children, shared assets, etc.
As long as the official GOP platorm says that homosexuals must report back to their post in the closet, we will continue to get leberal shit like this healthcare bill rammed down our throats. 2010 could be the GOPs biggest victory ever, but I guranatee that the GOP of today will only be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
(posted from my iPhone so forgive my mispellings)
Posted by: blindman on December 27, 2009 06:56 AMWhat I have given you, is simple fundamental Truth. You can fill column after column with all kinds of sophisticated, informative research and rhetoric in your efforts to impress yourself and everybody else but, the Bottom Line:...Government wants to Grow and Control and will use any means to do so...PERIOD!
Posted by: Daniel on December 27, 2009 09:24 AM
The side effect is that instead of fixing things it only solidified the problem. We now have Senators that don't represent the people or the state. They represent the political party.
The problem is compounded in not allowing people to support candidates. Strict limits on donations means the bulk of the funds comes from the parties. Want funding for an election you better tow the party line. You are not allowed to raise money any other way.
This has created a polarizing effect on the population. Very few think outside the two party lines. It is not even a liberal vs. conservative ideology.
As long as the Senate is beholden to the parties the states are screwed.
Posted by: Vince on December 27, 2009 12:04 PMAnd that's exactly how the career politicians want it. An increasingly strong Federal Government is the goal, the breakdown of the power of the States is key.
We're sliding towards a fascist oligarchy, with our rulers being Senators and Representatives elected with the Party, out-of-State funds and "support" from PACs. Senators are the worst because you have one chance every 6 years to remove them.
So we end up with a permanent political class who stay in power for decades, and have a huge impact in choosing their successor. A virtual oligarchy running the nation.
Elimination of the 17th Amendment would go a long way towards restoring the power to the States...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 27, 2009 12:50 PMI do not believe that bribes are constitutional.
Some fancy lawyer may try to prove me wrong, it not being said so in the constitution itself, but my simplistic understanding of law is that bribes are illegal. Every senator, congressman and judge guilty of accepting or offering bribes or blackmail should be thrown out on their tails.
How do we accomplish that?
Well, interesting times are upon us, aren't they?
I do not believe that bribes are constitutional.
Some fancy lawyer may try to prove me wrong, it not being said so in the constitution itself, but my simplistic understanding of law is that bribes are illegal. Every senator, congressman and judge guilty of accepting or offering bribes or blackmail should be thrown out on their tails.
How do we accomplish that?
Well, interesting times are upon us, aren't they?
Senators are responsible for representing the People of their State. Get it?
Meaning they are representatives of the STATE government more like an ambassador of the state to the federal government ... Dickensen was one of the founders he knows what they are if anyone does.
I also meant that they are not representatives of the people according to the founders and the constitution... that is why they were not to be selected by the people. The founders had good reason for that.. to protect the states from the feds. Protect the people from the feds is the job of the House of Reps.
They framed the government the way they did so it would fight with each other branch to branch all the time and have gridlock unless it was really important, like an attack by another country or something , they saw the feds as a huge big evil that needed its hands chained .. The 17th unchained those hands and made it easier for the federal government to work together within itself and therefore to encroach on yours and my rights... spin out of control become a cumbersome large monster of bureaucracy. That's why they fought the revolutionary war... to escape that... they didn't want a eficiant federal government that all branches moved the same way and worked together well ... no they wanted each branch to counter the other all the time .. Today we don't have that at all.
Posted by: Kennewick Man on December 27, 2009 10:33 PMDaniel, you said it yourself, "Each State is represented by two Senators..."
Article 1, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constition states: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States..."
Article 1, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution states: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof..."
Senators were intentionally made to be representatives of the state governments for all of the reasons both me and everybody else states. Having a desire to restore the constitution back to its original wording in this case does not make us liberals.
Somewhere along the line Daniel, you got the idea that direct election by the people was the only way the "will of the people" would be heard. In America, there is no such thing as a singular "will of the people". There will always be a huge spectrum of political philosophies and opinions. That's why it is crucial to maintain as much personal liberty and freedom as possible. Trying to coerce people into a single philosophy (like the current leftist agenda) will only lead to violence.
My conservative views (as in, wanting to preserve/restore the original Republic) clearly differ from yours. Deal with it. Not respecting a difference of opinion is why the GOP is bankrupt both morally and financially (at least in WA state).
I'm calling it, I think this horse has been beaten to death...PERIOD!
Posted by: blindman on December 28, 2009 05:23 AMPlease consider the 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It's pretty clear that - in the minds of the Founders - the Federal Government, States, and the people were to be equal in terms of power. The States or the people have the powers not delegated to the Federal Government.
The Senators were to be the representative voice of the States in Congress; the people had direct election of the Representatives, but the States had the Senators as their voice in the national assembly.
The original structure was built so that the powers reserved to the States would stay with the States; when Senators became directly elected, the power the States held on a national level was dramatically reduced, exactly opposite of what the Founders intended.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 28, 2009 04:07 PMBut beyond that and the Nebraska carve-out, this health care bill is of great interest to lawyers from a takings standpoint and it doesn't hinge on the Nebraska carve-out but insurance company (business) freedom to make a reasonable return in investment. From a communication a lawyer buddy and I have been having:
"Here's an interesting article, albeit somewhat long and technical, that argues that the Reid bill is fatally flawed from a constitutional 'takings' standpoint. He basically makes the argument that, under the bill, health care insurance providers become analogous to regulated utilities, but are denied the ability to earn an adequate rate of return, given they are mandated to provide certain services but prevented on charging premiums necessary to recoup their additional costs.
The article is asserting that the health insurance providers will be treated as regulated utilities but will not be allowed to earn a fair rate of return as is allowed to regulated utilities. In essence, they could essentially be driven out of business by being required to provide services costing more money without being able to recoup that extra cost due to constraints on the premiums they will be allowed to charge.
The whole thrust of the argument is that they will essentially be facing expropriation of property by the government without compensation - a classic constitutional 'takings' analysis."
http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/spotlight/spotlight.php
So, I'm not that knowledgeable of constitutional issues myself and considering that the Kelo case (to me) was a clear issue of a "taking", and it wasn't overturned, so who knows what will happen here. But this assertion that health insurance providers will be treated as regulated utilities is a real bombshell. I also think that this and the Nebraska carve-out aren't the only unconstitutional issues in the bill. We shall see soon.
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 28, 2009 04:24 PMbut, doesn't deal with the subject as to whether, the People should have a say in how they are governed.
Do we not have a vote for the Representatives? That is a direct voice to the Congress. Do we not have a vote for our State legislatures? That is a direct voice into how the States operate.
You're ignoring the popular election of Representatives on a National and State level, and popular election of State Senators. That is the voice of the people.
The Senators were to be the voice of the other power, the States. That's gone, and unfortunately that power went to the Federal Government rather than the people.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 28, 2009 05:36 PMIf I don't post here agin until after the new year HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE :-)
Posted by: Kennewick Man on December 28, 2009 06:13 PMYour position that the Senators are no longer the voice of the States because, they were elected by the People is totally without merit. A corrupted Senator elected by the Legislator or by the People is a LOST Representative for the State...PERIOD! Since, it is far easier for a Senator to be Corrupted by being elected by the Legislators than, by the People then, the LOST to the State as a Representative is far Greater when, elected by the Legislators. This has all be explained to you and you still don't Get It? Amazing!
Your position that the Senators are no longer the voice of the States because, they were elected by the People is totally without merit.
Well, Daniel, I guess we part ways... You make a claim, provide no proof, not even a logical statement to back it up. In fact, by being popularly elected State-wide, the Senators will not represent the State's governance at all.
Sorry you cannot see this simple fact, or are too stubborn to admit you're wrong. It's OK to say "yes, the State no longer has a voice, but I think it's better". Rants about corruption prove my position - Senators are corrupt BECAUSE they are now popularly elected and thus completely open to influence via campaign donations.
I'm done, you're not being logical or consistent, and your position - while populist - is not conservative.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on December 28, 2009 06:30 PM
Dear Senator Murray:
Bless you for passing the health care bill. But why do we Washingtonians have to play patsies to the states with cannier representatives? The senators from Louisiana and Nebraska, by simply pretending to hold out a little, got *huge* payoffs for their constituents. Couldn't you have gotten in on some of that that loot?
You have been in the Senate for an awfully long time. You shouldn't need an amateur like me to tell you how to scoop some money out of the tax river as it flows by. Although I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and grant that this sort of naked payola is kind of unprecedented, but jeez Senator Murray, couldn't you have held out for a little something more?
Okay, we missed out on this one. Let's all just move on. I'm sure the senate is going to put forth plenty of bills dispensing plenty of moolah before the 2010 elections, so I'm sure there will be more opportunities in the future to raid the public purse for us.
Thanks in advance.
To be honest, idea wasn't mine but a good idea is worth stealing.
Posted by: G Jiggy on December 29, 2009 12:39 PM