A Constitutional Amendment That Needs Amending

Thats interesting as hell, I never knew that aspect. Going to have to read more, but my first thought.

Once they fiddle with that what other amendment will they want to faddle with?

It is unfortunate but we know it's true, not to mention those states that have had one-party domination will never go for it either, nor will those wanting more of a globalist influence.

People actually hate states now, they hate a state that doesn't have/or support the issues that are favorite in their respective states.

Remember the old saying "Are you really going to make a Federal case over this? " or something to that effect?

It's great in theory but perhaps we need a better class of legislators to decide on what is really a damn good idea, on a lot of levels.

Not to mention the current collection of azzhats has their calendar filled with things they need to fix.

originally posted by: Allaroundyou
a reply to: watchitburn

Sour ability to accept others life choices seems to upset your way of life......I'm sure that must be a life long Issue.
Wanna comment on the future aspect of overseen lessons?

Women don't think logically, they think emotionally.

This has given us Soros DAs, who let murderers and rapists out on no bail.

They convict people to 18 years in prison for posting a meme.

Women, especially white leftist women, are the largest threat to freedom the world has ever seen.

They must be Stopped for the good of the Republic.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sooki, I have no interest in partaking in partisan politics with you. I hold both parties guilty of treason to the people.

This is a core issue that surpass simple political bickering, so take your partisan tripe and shove it.

originally posted by: ntech
If they can void the 17th they need to add a term limit of one term. That way no matter how monstrous they are they're gone after 6 years. And force the state to choose new senators every time.

I couldn't agree more... they should add term limits for a bevy of reasons honestly.

as a fan of Republican government and the Constitution i have to disagree, states should have no power over the peoples representation at the national level, otherwise what's the point of the US Constitution, at that point our republic might as well not exist, do you want us to become like the ussr or something?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Cause, you know, the people certainly never lived in the states, only the country made up of, you know, the states ...

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Cause, you know, the people certainly never lived in the states, only the country made up of, you know, the states ...

its not a country if states were independent like you suggest.

Maybe I'm missing something, but in what world does allowing politicians to select politicians lead to less corruption?

originally posted by: Threadbare
Maybe I'm missing something, but in what world does allowing politicians to select politicians lead to less corruption?

I think it's because local politicians are more honest than federal politicians, plus they are closer to their electorate and have to answer directly to them.

If you wanted a serious answer.

If you're leftist trolling then save your breath. A Constitutional Convention won't happen even in your lifetime.

originally posted by: Threadbare
Maybe I'm missing something, but in what world does allowing politicians to select politicians lead to less corruption?

exactly, why would we leave our national representation up to the state governments to decide for us the people?

a reply to: namehere

Have you read the 10th amendment to the constitution lately?

Amendment X
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.

Cornell Law com

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Threadbare
Maybe I'm missing something, but in what world does allowing politicians to select politicians lead to less corruption?

I think it's because local politicians are more honest than federal politicians, plus they are closer to their electorate and have to answer directly to them.

If you wanted a serious answer.

If you're leftist trolling then save your breath. A Constitutional Convention won't happen even in your lifetime.

lol, no the states aren't more honest, they are just as corruptible, maybe more so because their unitary structure.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Even if that is the case you're still leaving the decision up to just a handful of people, making sdny corruption much more magnified.

And let's be fair, even at the state level a politician is going to be more corrupt than your average person.

So how does leaving the decision up to state legislators make the process of selecting Senators less corrupt than allowing term to be voted on by the people?

Text

a reply to: DBCowboy

A Constitutional Convention won't happen even in your lifetime.

I have to admit, not likely. But one can wish, can't they?
The old saying, "wish in one hand and $h** in the other and see which one fills up first".

originally posted by: Threadbare
a reply to: DBCowboy

Even if that is the case you're still leaving the decision up to just a handful of people, making sdny corruption much more magnified.

And let's be fair, even at the state level a politician is going to be more corrupt than your average person.

So how does leaving the decision up to state legislators make the process of selecting Senators less corrupt than allowing term to be voted on by the people?

I guess it's as fair as pockets of leftists on both coasts determining the fate of the entire nation.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: BernnieJGato

senators are two voices of people of their state not the state voice

Exactly. It's "We the People", not "We the States".

It's the United STATES of America, not the United People of America. The “United States” was a collective noun, a union of states. People thought of themselves as citizens of their respective states.

A good example is Robert E. Lee. He was asked to head up the Union Army, but he felt he owed his allegiance to his state, Virginia, not the federal government. He was head of the Army of Northern Virginia. It was only after the Civil War that people began to see themselves as citizens of the United States, which became a singular noun. I would maintain that this was the beginning of the end of our personal freedom. Now the Federal Government is the overall ruler and the stats are no more than super counties with little real power. Changing the Senate to a directly-elected body was a populist movement that backfired. It DID NOT increase citizen power; it reduced it, and we suffer the consequences today.

The other issue here is “Banish the two-party system.” WHAT two-party system? And how would you banish it? Anyone can create a political party, which is a private institution. In thus country we have the Libertarians, the Greens, the Constitutionalist, and any number of small parties most people haven't heard of. Look on any national ballot. We've had many elections where a third party made a big influence. Ross Perot, George Wallace, even Teddy Roosevelt. “Banning” the “two-party system” makes no logical sense. What, precisely, are you going to ban?

originally posted by: namehere

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Cause, you know, the people certainly never lived in the states, only the country made up of, you know, the states ...

its not a country if states were independent like you suggest.

It is a Republic. The Federal government was only intended to be an entity representing the states to the rest of the world and keeping them playing nicely between themselves. The states were always intended to hold quite a bit of power in and of themselves as political entities.

That's why they have an entire Amendment in the Bill of Rights outlining their power.

The COTUS was always intended to be a cage keeping the Fed from becoming an all-powerful behemoth.

a reply to: namehere

And what we have now is working out oh so well, why would we ever want to change it now? This garbage we have running the nation now is bringing us closer to nuclear Armageddon, and spending near 40 billion tax dollars to get us there. Closer than we have ever been because of the glutinous stupidity they are pursuing in Ukraine. Doomsday Clock now set at 90 seconds to midnight. The closest it has ever been.

But that's ok, isn't it?

These criminal bastards are going to get us all killed before they are finished.

originally posted by: namehere

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Threadbare
Maybe I'm missing something, but in what world does allowing politicians to select politicians lead to less corruption?

I think it's because local politicians are more honest than federal politicians, plus they are closer to their electorate and have to answer directly to them.

If you wanted a serious answer.

If you're leftist trolling then save your breath. A Constitutional Convention won't happen even in your lifetime.

lol, no the states aren't more honest, they are just as corruptible, maybe more so because their unitary structure.

Well California certainly shows what happens. Of course because there are 50 of them, people can also do what Californians are doing and they can vote with their feet and leave the corrupt kleptocracy which is precisely why the left wants to eliminate the states. As soon as people start leaving the country, leftists will discover the value of borders walls and controls too.

a reply to: DBCowboy

What exactly are you babbling on about? You seem pretty combative over me suggesting that the current setup for electing Senators seems like it would lead to less corruption than consolidating that power in the hands of a few politicians.