A friend of mine said he thought a representative should vote the way his constituents want, thinking that many Senators are not doing their job by voting against health insurance reform that their constituents don't want.
To me, however, this is not the republican form of government our founders instituted. Edmund Burke said in 1774, in one of my favorite quotes, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
I've always loved that quote, but in the case of health insurance reform, I think the context immediately preceding that quote is even more relevant: "... his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable."
When a legislator is bought off, or when he otherwise allows himself to be swayed for the good of the party or some other thing besides the legislation at hand, he is doing something worse than going against the will of his constituents: he is going against his own judgment, abusing a sacred trust.
I do not respect representatives who vote on legislation on a basis other than their own views of whether that legislation should or should not be law. That's their job, that's the power they've been entrusted with. But that's not how the parties expect representatives to act: they expect them to tow the party line, and at the very least, be willing to be bought off.
I understand this to some degree: parties exist to get agendas implemented. If you're a member of the party, you're expressing agreement with a significant portion of that agenda. But that is short-sighted. A strong party, long term, will nurture not fealty to specific (and ever-changing) agendas and compliance with leadership, but, rather, consistent application of the principles that support that agenda.
When you do that, you might lose some bills, but you get something much more valuable: a party comprised of representaives that the public trusts to follow their established principles and vote their conscience.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 18, 2010 09:52 PM | Email ThisIt is equally frustrating to see those same republicans now claiming their favorite politicians are like Ron Paul but not backing up the claim with votes proving they vote with principle.
Posted by: Lysander on January 18, 2010 10:32 PMI would be very happy however if Kennedy does really well because even if he loses it will be a step in the right because as pudge says, we would get 'but you get something much more valuable: a party comprised of representaives that the public trusts to follow their established principles and vote their conscience.
Pudge,
who do you want to win tommorow and why?
Why it frustrated you to see R's attack a moron with perspectives and principles that had nothing to do with Republicanism is a mystery to me.
Posted by: Hinton on January 19, 2010 12:20 AMI heard that Brian Suits is coming back to KVI in the morning's to take Kirby Wilbur's slot. Welcomed news for us early risers.
Posted by: Rick D. on January 19, 2010 05:57 AMDuffman: you use the word "idealistic" as though it is somehow opposed to "realistic." That is incorrect. Not that you don't have a point, but the main reason this ideal isn't made real most of the time is because we, the voters, don't demand it. (Well, there could also be legislative reforms to help: one-issue-per-bill would help, as would mandating smaller bills, as would some sort of a "line item veto," and so on.)
That said, Republican and conservative voters HAVE demanded it, in large numbers: this is the biggest reason why the Democrats won in 2006, because Republican and conservative voters stopped voting for people that wouldn't stand up for principles. How about the voters on YOUR side start following suit? :-)
On the substance, you are certainly correct. I just hope that a lot of these senators and representative who are toeing their party line against their own judgment of the legislation and against the wishes of their own constituents discover the price to be paid for that in November.
Posted by: Bill H on January 19, 2010 08:42 AMIn all cases, I want to vote for someone that most embodies the same principles that I hold dear. Once I have voted, I sure don't expect that representative to conduct a poll on every issue asking my opinion. If you're going to do that, then screw the representative government and let's just do the whole thing by referendum.
I think that this mostly exemplifies the failure/weakness of the 17th Amendment. I think the Congresspeople are more "on the hook" to their constituents because they represent a smaller population and the elections are more frequent. We can complain about Baghdad Jim, but the people that vote for him like what he does (or they were just taught to vote 'D' without actually thinking about it). Representatives discover every other year whether or not they are in line with the principles of their constituents.
Senators, on the other hand, are a different breed. They represent TOO MANY people. How can you say a Senator must act in the interests of his/her constituency in a state of reasonable size? Their terms are TOO LONG for a directly-elected office. Both of those facts make it easy for them to represent not the interests of their constituency, but instead the interests of those that give them political power.
I want to vote for someone that has conservative values, but how does that compete against the machinations and money of the modern campaign? So pudge, I agree that we the voters have not held our leaders accountable to those principles, on the other hand there are human "flaws" and systemic "flaws" (not sure that's the right word) that complicate such a simple argument.
Posted by: Erich on January 19, 2010 10:29 AM"We should elect people who do not tow party lines but instead vote on principle. That is why it was so frustrating to see so many republicans attack Ron Paul in 08."
My reply was this: Paul was a whack job RINO, who used the system and the identity of the GOP so he could push his message.
Please let me know if you require any further clarification.
Posted by: Hinton on January 19, 2010 01:15 PMDaniel @10: absolutely. Legislatures should select Senators. This has many positive benefits, two of the most obvious being that Senators would be beholden to no one but the legislators themselves, and the latter being that we would therefore hold the legislators responsible for the actions of our Senators.
Calling someone a "Statist" for this makes even less sense than calling someone a "Nazi" because they are a Democrat ... oh right, but you do that, too. But keep in mind that our Consitution, which is anti-Statist document, had legislatures choose Senators, so quite obviously, that method was not considered by our Founders to be Statist, and neither do I consider it to be Statist.
Palouse @11: yes, yes, and yes.
Hinton @12: I don't know what you're referring to, but I like Ron Paul. I disagree with him on some big things and never would vote for him for the Republican nominee for President, but I like him. I do not believe he is a RINO at all. He cares about (though somewhat misunderstands) the Constitution, he loves the rule of law, and he has committed much of his life to fighting for liberty.
Paul's part of the Reagan's "80 percent" group, the people who agree with you 80 percent of the time who are your allies. But then again, so is McCain, and he gets the disdain of many Republicans, too. But I like both McCain and Paul. Go figure.
No Negro dialect.
Posted by: G Jiggy on January 19, 2010 03:11 PMSince SCOTUS struck down term limits imposed by states (another horrible decision that once again, Thomas got right), it doesn't look like it will ever pass, even though some estimate that better than 70% of Americans support it.
Posted by: Palouse on January 19, 2010 03:11 PMI don't know that any term limits could be passed without amending the Constitution. Again, I'd have to read the decision, but, you don't NEED Congress to amend the Constitution, so even if you COULD just pass a law in Congress ... we don't need to.
I think you are correct about it requiring an amendment, but I doubt we will ever see the day where this amendment comes directly from the people. Although people support it, I don't see enough of a movement to get an amendment going.
Posted by: Palouse on January 19, 2010 04:02 PMIt would really be funny if it did come from the people: if a supermajority of the people stood up and said they didn't want a mere majority of the people to keep electing the same people. Obviously, there's legitimate reasons why people who prefer term limits vote for people beyond those limits we wish for ... but it would highlight just how messed up things can get, when people are asking to be protected from themselves. :-)
I haven't read Thomas' dissent, and to this point remained unswayed to either position.
I never called Democrats Nazis. I call far Left Liberals...NAZIS! Why? Lets see...They share common ground on Eugenics, Euthanasia, Abortion, Socialism, Fascism, etc...And Yes, Nazis are Statist as well.
First, how has the 17th Amendment fixed that? Come on now. Politicians are "easily bought off" now as much as at any time in our history, except now the people buying them off are doing it directly instead of through other elected officials. Who do you think you're fooling?
Second, it is now, today, easier to hold them accountable for such things.
Since, they had no direct obligation to the Public at large or their direct Vote to retain their seats and only obligated to their fellow Partners in Crime Legislators, they had no fear of not being reelected.
Again ... how much fear do they have today? Come on now. Senators very rarely lose reelection (it usually only happens in "revolution" years like 1994, and maybe 2010) and few of them fear it. Who do you think you're fooling?
Amendments are to fill in the Gaps, correct any Flaws ...
And I do not disagree that the people of the early 20th century saw this as a flaw. And I say they were wrong, just like they were wrong with prohibition and the income tax. They misidentified the problem, as populists often do. Instead of working to elect better legislators, they broke the republic, defeating one of the primary reasons the Senate exists and opening up our legislature to all manner of federal intrusion into our lives.
In the words of James Madison, one of the ways to prevent the legislature from becoming predominant was to "divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit."
So now the Senate and the House are elected the same way, and we end up having two houses of the Congress that are more connected in purpose than before popular election of Senators.
You really misidentified the point of the 17th Amendment: it was not mostly about corruption -- that's what they said -- but it was really about a democratic takeover of the republic. Senators, in their mind, too often didn't want to go along with the popular will. The same thing happened when FDR tries to stack the Supreme Court: if you disagree with what the body does, you try to change how it works.
Our government was designed to REBUFF the will of the people, not to blindly follow it. The 17th Amendment from the beginning was a step toward democracy, and AWAY FROM a republic that protected individual liberties.
Why would you want to go back to the concerns and problems that brought into being the 17th Amendment to correct? Doesn't make Sense...Does it?
Except, of course, that you didn't identify a single problem that the 17th Amendment fixed. Wanna try again?
I never called Democrats Nazis. I call far Left Liberals...NAZIS! Why? Lets see...They share common ground on Eugenics, Euthanasia, Abortion, Socialism, Fascism, etc...And Yes, Nazis are Statist as well.
I have nothing more to say to this.
Thank you, MA!!!!!!
Posted by: Attila on January 19, 2010 06:19 PMWhether they are Republican or Democrat, they need to go in November. No guarantee that all of the new blood would have principles and dare I say - integrity, but it appears that the masses are starting to wake up and will be able to discern better than before. The next battle looming is within the Democratic Party between the Traditionals and Progressives. For the sake of the future of this country, I am pulling for the Traditionals. The progressives have come within a gnat's eyelash of poisoning the future of this country and it isn't over yet. Stay vigilant !
Posted by: KDS on January 19, 2010 08:23 PMIt's telling that you refused to give a single thing that the 17th Amendment fixed. Don't worry, it's not because you're not up to it: no one could do it, because the 17th Amendment didn't fix anything. But it did largely destroy the only "checks and balances" the founders of this country ever mentioned: those between the two houses of the legislature.
The 17th Amendment was about nothing more than destroying the legislature's checks and balances to make it easier for the democratic will to override constitutional principles and individual liberties. That's all it ever was.
You're not paying attention. Please do so now:
I pointed out the fact that we have rampant corruption EVEN WITH the 17th Amendment, so clearly the 17th Amendment DID NOT FIX the problem. And then I asked you to tell us what the 17th Amendment fixed.
I did not ask you for a reason for it, I asked you what it fixed. I know the reasons for it; I know many people think it was to stop corruption, but really, that was a populist lie, because it was really to allow the Congress more power to disregard individual liberties.
I have given you the reason why, it is easier to Corrupt the few as opposed to the many.
Irrelevant, unless you can show that our Senators today are less corrupt than when legislartures selected them. And you can't do that, obviously.
There should be a Division of Powers "Checks and Balances" Not, the two holding hands with one electing another.
Except that the Founders only ONCE in our founding documents mentioned "checks and balances." And the context of it was in the House and Senate checking and balancing EACH OTHER. And Madison made clear that one of the WAYS that we HAVE those "checks and balances" is by having the state legislatures select the Senators, and the people electing the Representatives.
We have FEWER checks and balances BECAUSE OF the 17th Amendment.
If you read my commentary in more a fair and receptive manner perhaps, you will get the gist of what I'm saying.
Yes, I do: you are saying the 17th Amendment was to fight corruption. I am saying it wasn't for that purpose, and it did not fulfill that purpose.
Yes, I'm saying the 17th Amendment was to Fight/Reduce Corruption. Yes, it has kept Corruption from running more rampant than, it is currently doing. The 17th Amendment was an attempt to Slow Corruption and Never was it thought to eliminate Corruption altogether. As Jefferson stated: The Tree of Liberty should be watered from time to time with the Blood of the Patriots. Meaning, whatever safeguards may be put in place, it will not be enough and in time there will have to be a House Cleaning aka Blood Purge of the Government.
False.
The 17th ... served to Reduce Corruption that otherwise would have occurred.
False.
You wouldn't want the House and the Senate to have a Strangle Hold on this Nation that the Congress/Democrats and Obama have, do you?
You know "the Congress/Democrats" IS "the House and the Senate," right?
the 17th Amendment ... has kept Corruption from running more rampant than, it is currently doing
False.
Yes, I know that the House can be referred to both Congress and Senate. However, there is that difference between the upper House and the lower House and that is why I made the separation. You didn't think I didn't know...did you?
False.
For you to simply not address my statement and without any explanation, debate, proof to the contrary and just, state FALSE...is Arrogantly Wrong for you to do so and Ridiculous.
You offered NO evidence to back up your claim; therefore, I do not need to provide any explanation or proof or debate to deny it. (And no, saying "CNN coverage" is not proof, even if you provided a link, which you didn't.)
Yes, I know that the House can be referred to both Congress and Senate.
No, it can't.
Posted by: pudge on January 20, 2010 10:40 AMYes, the House can be referred to both Congress and Senate. You know the three branches of Government. Well, the House can substitute for the term Legislative. Also, the House is referred in that manner in conversations and in print. It is not uncommon for such usage.
I've never heard a recognized Liberal commentator speak in FAVOR of the repeal of the 17th Amendment, either. So this certainly is a poor argument for you.
Yes, the House can be referred to both Congress and Senate.
False. Not only is this not an actual English sentence, but every way I try to make it into proper English, it's still incorrect.
Here's a link: obsidianwings.blogs.com/.../repeal-the-17th-amendment.html Supports my position on the 17th Amendment.
Posted by: Daniel on January 20, 2010 11:54 AM... is true. And as you've not given us anything to back up your claim, I need to say no more than that.
Here's a link: obsidianwings.blogs.com/.../repeal-the-17th-amendment.html Supports my position on the 17th Amendment.
False.
First, becase that is not a link: it doesn't work. Even copying and pasting doesn't work. The correct text for the link is "http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2009/02/repeal-the-17th-amendment.html". You left out the crucial "obsidian_wings/2009/02" and replaced it with the incorrect "...".
Second, because even if you could find a liberal who is in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment it would not support your position, which is that repealing the 17th Amendment is "more of a Liberal push than, a Conservative" issue. You cannot give a single example and support "more"/"less" than.
Third, and most importantly, because if you actually read the contents at that URL (maybe since you didn't have the correct link, you didn't read the article, and just read the link itself? that would explain it, especially since the question mark in the article's title didn't make it into the link), you will see the author -- who is a self-described "Ted Kennedy liberal" -- is in favor of KEEPING the 17th Amendment, and it is conservative George Will who is in favor of repealing it. This liberal even parrots your own argument, that "[bribing] state legislatures ... [is] easier than trying to bribe the public as a whole."
How sad is it that your only evidence actually shows the conservative agreeing with me, and the liberal agreeing with you? Seriously.
And you still haven't demonstrated a single positive effect the 17th Amendment has had.
Maybe you should just give up while you are way, way, behind?
It would be difficult to show a positive effect of the 17th Amendment because, I don't have a Crystal Ball to review the added calamity that would have occurred without the 17th Amendment. However, I do know that Politicians as a whole are Corrupt and if you let another group of Politicians elect another group of Politicians, the chance of Corruption will be increase. This is a matter of common sense and common understanding that this would be True. Not, all people have the level of understanding to see/realize the increase potential for Corruption by such an arrangement.
Well, you're independent, anyway.
I don't seek the Collective for my opinions.
Are you implying that I do? Could you show any evidence of this? (Of course, the answer is No, but I wonder if you'll try.)
It's exceptional -- and not in a good way -- that you express a love for independent thinking when you just today made a point of saying, "You'll find that the push for the Repeal of the 17th Amendment is more of a Liberal push than, a Conservative push," which can be described as nothing less than an appeal to consider what others think with respect to my own views.
If a particular Liberal through perhaps, happenstance, may pick up and hold a Truth, I'll will not turn away from it.
Dude. YOU are the one who said that URL supported your view that the repeal of the 17th Amendment was supported more by liberals than conservatives. I was simply pointing out that if anything, it showed precisely the opposite of what you said, because it showed a conservative being for its repeal, and a liberal being against.
Can you not at least acknowledge that you could not back up your claim that repeal of the 17th Amendment is a liberal view? Can you even find ONE liberal that has that view? Just one?
It would be difficult to show a positive effect of the 17th Amendment because, I don't have a Crystal Ball to review the added calamity that would have occurred without the 17th Amendment.
You also have not even attempted to make a serious argument for any positive effect. All you've done is look at the rampant, massive corruption of today and say, impotently, "well it would be worse without the 17th Amendment." That's so pathetic you're better off not even trying to make the argument.
I do know that Politicians as a whole are Corrupt and if you let another group of Politicians elect another group of Politicians, the chance of Corruption will be increase
No, you do NOT know that. At all. You're pretending you know it, when you know nothing of the sort. You could make the case that there will be corruption in such a system, but you cannot make the case that there will be "more" corruption than what we have now. You have absolutely no logical construction to lead you to that conclusion.
Not, all people have the level of understanding to see/realize the increase potential for Corruption by such an arrangement.
And it is telling that you cannot even rationally describe this "potential," and how it would differ from what exists today except to say "there would be, you know, MORE of it!"
Meanwhile, I've given very specific reasons and example of why the 17th Amendment has had a negative effect, and you've not even responded to the points.
No...I never said that the URL supported my view that the repeal of the 17th Amendment was supported more by Liberals than Conservative. I merely said that it supports my view of the 17th Amendment. However, I still stand by my position that the repeal of the 17th Amendment is more supported by Liberals than, Conservatives. Why? Because, Liberals are the Easy Believing Dolts who will fall for the SCAMS of this World with far greater frequency than, Conservatives. Anybody, who believes that the majority of Politicians are Honest and Noble is seriously Naive. This is based upon the Fact, that there are very few Statesmen and plenty of common Politicians. It is very well known that Politicians as a group are not known for their Straight Dealings and Honesty. So, on that well known basis, it can be easily and logically said, that if you allow a group of Politicians to elect another group of Politicians, the chance of Corruption will be Increased. Again, not all people have the level of understanding to see/realize the increase potential for Corruption by such an arrangement. Your problem is...You will hold on to your original position through Pride rather than, take a clear and open minded look as to what has been said. Isn't written, that Pride comes before the fall?
I couldn't even fathom a guess, since you cannot produce a single liberal who has called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, despite your repeated claims that it is a primarily liberal view.
Your problem is...You will hold on to your original position through Pride rather than, take a clear and open minded look as to what has been said.
You're lying, Daniel. Stop doing that.
On the matter of our disagreement with the 17th Amendment...If you think that Legislators are above being Bribed by Special Interests in the selecting of the Special Interests' personal representatives rather than, the Legislators doing their duty and only selecting representatives for the State and therefore, the people as well then, so be it. Perhaps, your trust and faith in the "above reproach of a Legislator" is greater than, mine. So lets us end this matter as an impasse and to pursue it any further between us, would be Futile.
Yes, you are.
I'm expressing an honest opinion.
No, you are asserting as fact something you are ignorant of, and wrong about. It is uncivil and disallowed.
No more warnings.
On the matter of our disagreement with the 17th Amendment ...
You offer no argument or evidence to support your case, and thus you have nothing to say that is worth responding to.
Yes, no argument just, common sense reasoning.
Posted by: Daniel on January 21, 2010 10:40 AMI fully expect this last comment to be deleted. If not...Perhaps I've been too hard on pudge.
Point taken. I know where you're coming from.
Posted by: Alan on January 22, 2010 07:16 PMYou're lying.
He will not allow you to use Logic, Reason and the known ways of Politicians as points in supporting and explaining your position.
Daniel, where did you use ANY of these? That's the problem. You don't. You make ridiculous claims and then never back them up. If you had, I would have "allowed your opinion to stand" without rebuttal. The problem is that you didn't. You didn't back up anything you said with reason or logic.
For example: you literally could not come up with a single shred of actual evidence to back up your claim that liberals support the repeal of the 17th Amendment more than conservartives ... such as an actual liberal who wants to repeal the 17th Amendment. Yet you continued to maintain this view, and pretend that it was backed up by reason. It's not.
He will arbitrarily claim your statements to be False without any explanation or facts as to why he considers them to be False.
False, on all counts. Nothing I do is arbitrary; and I usually give explanations. What I don't do is offer evidence to rebut an idiotic claim that has no evidence offered for it. If you say, "the sky is green," I just say, "false." I have no need to provide explanation, because you have given no evidence that requires me to. It's either pretty obvious that the sky isn't green, or at the very least, you need to offer evidence that it IS green before I can be bothered to show that it ISN'T.
He is most ungracious and will call you a Liar without good cause.
You're lying. I have never called anyone a liar without good cause. And I am very gracious to people who aren't lying or trolling or being abusive in some other way.
He is easily offended
You're lying. In fact, I am, relative to most people I've met, very difficult to offend.
and will snap back rudely
In response to rudeness, you bet. I have never been rude to you, for example, except when you have been rude first. Calling people Nazis, for example, I consider to be rude (not to mention moronic); and I will be rude in return.
On that basis, it is difficult to have a fair exchange.
The only thing that makes a fair exchange between us difficult is that you refuse to actually be logical or reasonable. Note that you did not back up a single point you made here. You made a few weak attempts, and I shot them all down with reason and logic. Yet you still maintain your points to be true. That is what makes the exchange unfair: you don't care about reason.
Pudge is intelligent above the common but, with intelligence, comes a greater danger of losing ones Humility and the ugliness of Pride soon rises.
That's a common misperception, but no, pride is not one of my failings. Not in these parts, anyway. Sort of the opposite, actually: I expect people like you to be logical and reasonable and understand what is required of a rational discussion, because since *I* can do it, I expect you can do it too. And I do get frustrated when you don't grasp what, to me, seems to be so obvious.
This is my failing: not quite a lack of pride, perhaps, but a lack of understanding that different people have different capabilities.
Another related thing that often gets mistaken for pride is my confidence in my own views. But such confidence is mostly orthogonal to pride.
Pudge has found what I found a few weeks ago - you're completely irrational about the 17th amendment, have no facts or basis for your conclusions other than your own internal beliefs.
If that's what you believe, fine - but understand you have zero justification or even logical criticism of any position counter yours. Show that corruption was rampant before the 17th and went away after the 17th and you may have a point. Otherwise you're just whining to whine.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 23, 2010 06:34 AMYes, let's get real. Those who put forth the 17th Amendment were wrong - if their problem was corruption (which you have not shown was their impetus OR a big problem), how has that been addressed?
At one time it was a constitutional amendment that prohibited the sale of alcohol; was that 100% correct too, as you claim the 17th was?
Bottom line: you defer to some historical impetus that you have not defined, and you cannot back up your claims about what it was supposed to address or what it has done.
HOWEVER, it is trivial to see the dramatic rise in the power of the Federal Government since 1911, which coincides with the passage of the 17th. With the loss of the State's voice at the Federal level, the Federal Government's own power grew and the corruption you were so worried about went from potentially 50 small areas to one monster one - DC.
The 17th failed in stopping corruption and it absolutely hastened the rise of the strong Federal Government. That you cannot - or will not - see these very facts is rather sad.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 23, 2010 11:34 AMOf course, the 17th Amendment didn't stop Corruption but, it did slow it down in the area that was just, discussed. If you think the Federal Government grew totally and only because, of the 17th Amendment, you're beyond the reach of common sense, awareness and perception. All Governments want to Grow...Period! There is not a system of checks and balances or any other devices known to Man that has successfully prevented the Growth of Government other than, the collapse of the supporting Society.
The house adequately informs the national government of the more direct views as expressed in popular elections at the congressional district level. The 17th amendment has rendered the senate a second chamber with a popular basis, subject in modern times to the very same public relations imperatives as the house of representatives.
It is entirely possible, and in fact quite likely, that the state legislatures are better judges of legislative ability than the public at large. We depend on these people for proper governance, and we need the best of the best. The current system is clearly not providing that. The public is dissatisfied with the national legislature, and the 17th amendment has necessarily contributed to these conditions. Repeal of the 17th amendment is a rational thing to consider in these circumstances. The design of this government at its inception, considering the general success of the country, is something that, when altered, may well be a source of troubles.
The status quo is for times when all is well. These are not those times. Restoring a prior state of our constitution is clearly an innovation, a conservative one.
We are currently offered unlimited commitments of massive public resources to
a) discretionary wars,
b) financial bailouts,
c) a complex, poorly understood, and keenly mistrusted national health law,
d) a carbon energy program of great expense and unconvincing benefit, and
e) various posturings over terrorism.
Something better requires a restructuring of our constitutional arrangements, to responsibly solve problems, rather than storing up a tidal wave of obligations for the future. Our popularly elected senators are not leading us where we need to go. Can that be reasonably disputed ?
Its good to see such things discussed. I read each and every prior posting with interest, and I thank the contributors. Sound Politics is a very fine Public Square.
Posted by: John on January 23, 2010 05:43 PMYou've defined, and you have not shown or referenced. Until you do, it's simply your desire, nothing more. Wishful thinking, we may say (as the solitary reference you provided in this thread was exactly OPPOSITE of your claim - it upheld pudge's position, not yours).
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 23, 2010 06:06 PMI provided presentation of what the reasons for the 17th Amendment coming into being.
Without any citations or sources, and without any evidence or argument that those reasons have been fulfilled.
I did provide a reference from an Individual who [is] a Liberal
... which hurts, not helps, your point.
In reality, no reference is needed for a reference doesn't necessarily prove a thing.
Stop lying. References absolutely would help substantiate your claim that repeal of the 17th is a liberal view. But you haven't a single one.
It is the reasoning followed by the knowledge of the Human Condition proved by thousands of years of Human History extrapolated out in arriving at a conclusion.
If that were true -- especially if it as clear as you say it is -- you would have evidence that corruption has been reduced since the 17th Amendment was ratified. But you have none.
In any civilized Exchange, it the Truth that both parties should be after
Yes, and we have it, and you do not.
not, who can Bloviate the MOST.
I think "It is the reasoning followed by the knowledge of the Human Condition proved by thousands of years of Human History extrapolated out in arriving at a conclusion" is the best bloviation I've seen here, so on that score, you would win.
Thankfully, no, we require actually GOOD arguments here, and you have none.
I provided presentation of what the reasons for the 17th Amendment coming into being
You provided YOUR THOUGHTS about why it was created; I have yet to see you provide - in any thread - a single name or reference to anyone who championed the cause back in the day.
I did provide a reference from an Individual who use to be a Republican and now, a Liberal.
And if you had read their screed you would have seen their position upholds yours, not pudge's. What you showed was the exact opposite of what you claimed - the conservative position is, in fact, to repeal the 17th.
In reality, no reference is needed for a reference doesn't necessarily prove a thing. It is the reasoning followed by the knowledge of the Human Condition proved by thousands of years of Human History extrapolated out in arriving at a conclusion.
And by your statements here, you believe the founders did not understand the human condition? What else did they get wrong in your opinion, Daniel? Perhaps free speech? Limiting the power of the Federal Government? Clearly taxation, right?
For you to require a reference on this matter is Ridiculous.
I'm not challenging your belief; however, you are making claims about the actions and beliefs of others, and that does require proof. No one can legitimately question your own internal beliefs as not true; but when you attribute words and actions to others you better be able to back that up.
I could provide you with a outright LIE and be able to find a reference to prove the LIE as being the TRUTH.
So far, you've tried and it hasn't worked, because you haven't provided any references.
In any civilized Exchange, it the Truth that both parties should be after not, who can Bloviate the MOST.
And we use logic and reason and facts to deduce the truth. So far, that is not being shown on your part. Facts show that corruption was a problem before the 17th, and is definitely a problem after the 17th; simple logic and reason would conclude that the 17th did not solve the issue of corruption.
Additionally, facts point to the growth in Federal power starting soon after the passage of the 17th; logic and reason would conclude that the popular election of Senators led to a decrease in the sovereignty of the States.
Logic and reason - hallmarks of a civilized exchange - point to the 17th as being a bad amendment for it did not solve the ills you claimed for its existence, and has demonstrably led to a rise in the consolidation of power within the Federal Government.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 24, 2010 09:35 AMAs a final Note: I could be Wrong in my position on the 17th Amendment and you could be Right, that the 17th Amendment created more problems than, what was solved. I have been Wrong many times before. However, without the 17th Amendment and allowing the Legislators to elect the Senators for the Noble attempt to have the States better represented would soon be Soiled by the means/reasons that I and many others have stated.
I'd recommend reading this page and the links it contains. In particular the 17th Amendment essays linked, including those by George Will, Bruce Bartlett, and John Truslow, Andrew Allison (all noted conservatives). Their arguments are well reasoned, rational, referenced, and solid.
The rise in the power of the Federal Government came about because of the 16th and 17th Amendments - giving the control of income tax to the Federal Government and eliminating the voice of the States from the Federal Government. Corruption - your main (and only) concern - continues unchecked.
The 17th failed in its goal to eliminate - or even reduce - corruption. Senate seats are still bought by the rich and sold by the parties (by their position of choosing the candidate). And the 17th has demonstrably silenced the voice of the States, thus effectively ceding power to the Federal Government.
It was a good idea, but has irreparably harmed the US and should be repealed.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 24, 2010 03:07 PM