In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:
Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:
Karl Denninger wrote:
In article ,
Harry Krause wrote:
Karl Denninger wrote:
Convince both legislative bodies and an appropriate number of states to
ratify your view of this matter, and you can have it.
I think we are moving in that direction. There's no reason not to do so.
I don't.
There are plenty of reasons not to do so. The reasons can be found in
places like The Federalist, to start.
There was a real concern that allowing direct presidential elections would
be disasterous. There was also a real concern that allowing direct
SENATORIAL elections would likewise be disasterous.
Yeah, well, there have been lots of concerns the last several hundred
years. Some panned out, some did not.
We now have nearly 100 years of a record on the latter, in the form of the
outrageous expansion of federalism since the 17th Amendment was passed.
Most Americans are satisfied to vote directly for their Senators.
Those who have discovered they can vote themselves a paycheck are often
satisfied with being able to do so.
Spurious argument. There's no problem with direct election of US
Senators, other than in your mind it prevents typically more
conservative state legislatures from turning the Senate into a
right-wing viper pit.
Certainly there is, in that it has removed one of the checks and balances
that the founders intended - that the State Legislatures be represented at
the Federal Lawmaking table.
The removal of a check and balance is ipso-facto proof of a "problem".
This does not mean that their satisfaction is well-founded, for if one
destablizes the underlying strength of the republic, there will be nothing
to be satisfied with.
There's no evidence that direct election of Senators has destabilized
the republic.
On the contrary. The entire folly of the Federal Government intruding into
State economic matters, and the growth of the entitlement state, currently
consuming over half of the Federal Budget, is traceable directly to the 17th
Amendment.
Without the 17th Amendment none of the "Great Society" package would have
passed. If it HAD passed, the Democratic rape of the budget via the removal
of the four promises made to people when Social Security was implemented
would have failed - specifically:
a. That the tax would never exceed 1.5% of the first $1,500 of gross
wages.
b. That the system would remain COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY.
c. That the money collected would NEVER be co-mingled with other
parts of the Treasury.
d. That the benefits paid would NEVER be federally taxed.
The Democratic Party broke all four of the above promisesl; Clinton, in
fact, was responsible for (d), and he was ready to propose an even bigger
rape of retirement accounts in the form of a 15% one-time tax on ALL
tax-deferred retirement instruments (which you have conveniently ducked
discussing when I've raised it before - I have no intention of letting you
get away with that Harry.)
I'll
bet you also oppose women's suffrage, right?
The two issues are completely unrelated, and this gratuitous slam is so much
like you Harry. Why is it you're unable to debate a topic put forward on
the table for consideration, and must instead resort to personal attacks?
So, you do oppose the vote for women. I'll bet you also oppose it for
those without some sort of wealth, right, Karl?
I have said no such thing; all CITIZENS of the age of 18 years should have
the right to exactly one vote on matters in which they have a Constitutional
Right to vote.
This does not, by the way, NECESSARILY include voting for President of the
United States - whether that right exists in a given state (to vote for the
electors in a given state) is a STATE'S RIGHT ISSUE.
The issue is one of the federal government being able to unlawfully (under
the Constitution) to "cram" programs and funding mandates down the state's
throats without their consent.
Ahhh...so you think states should be able to maintain "separate but
equal," eh?
Excuse me?
There is nothing in any of my statements, here or elsewhere, that supports
such a preposterous idea.
The entire purpose of having two legislative houses is found in the writings
of the founding fathers. They were designed to represented entirely
DIFFERENT constituencies, such that before any federal law could be passed,
or any amendment to the constitution could be passed, that it must first
make it through TWO constituenties, not one.
Times change, society evolves, and we either move forward or we stagnate.
There are TWO constituencies Harry.
I know you have no respect for State's Rights (you've said so), but the fact
of the matter is that the founding vision of this nation is one of a WEAK
federal government and a strong state and local one.
The Federal Government was intended to guarantee only fundamental liberty
interests, regulate interstate and international trade, and provide for the
defense of the nation.
This is all covered in every High School civics class - if you passed.
The House of Representatives was designed for direct election by the several
states for the specific purpose of insuring that THE PEOPLE - individuals -
had a clear and proportional voice in the federal government by the
population of the several states.
The Senate was designed specifically to provide a voice to the STATES - via
their elected legislatures - likewise had an equal voice in the passage of
laws which would bear on the states, or the people.
As I stated previously, I think states rights are so much bull****.
Then why not dissolve the States entirely?
Why should a State submit to being taxed (or forced to spend a given amount
of money - same thing) without the ability to sit at the legislative table
(be represented)?
Your argument is for the dissolution of the States entirely.
Or is it?
Harry, do you support the dissolution of States entirely?
--
--
Karl Denninger ) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net My home on the net - links to everything I do!
http://scubaforum.org Your UNCENSORED place to talk about DIVING!
http://www.spamcuda.net SPAM FREE mailboxes - FREE FOR A LIMITED TIME!
http://genesis3.blogspot.com Musings Of A Sentient Mind