Bill calls for abolishment of ATF

[mugsy]

The simple solution is to return to the Constitution - after we repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and Section 4 of the 14th. All else can stay, but WE MUST ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION. PERIOD. WITHOUT EXCEPTION. It's like everything else in the world. Everything runs better when you follow the instruction manual. You can't fix a Ford with a Chevy manual. You can't run a cement mixer in accordance with a lawn mower manual. You can't run a republic in accordance with Mein Kamp.

Woody

I completely agree with you regarding the 16th and 17th Amendments - repeal the 16th to starve the beast and the 17th to re-energize Federalism by giving the States a direct voice in the Federal government which has dwindled since the 17th was passed and took effect.

 

[donner]

The simple solution is to return to the Constitution - after we repeal the 16th and 17th amendments and Section 4 of the 14th. All else can stay, but WE MUST ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION. PERIOD. WITHOUT EXCEPTION. It's like everything else in the world. Everything runs better when you follow the instruction manual. You can't fix a Ford with a Chevy manual. You can't run a cement mixer in accordance with a lawn mower manual. You can't run a republic in accordance with Mein Kamp.

Why do people always think things were better before the direct election of senators?

 

[mugsy]

I just think the federal government is too strong -- an EU-like economic agreement would achieve the same benefits of an integrated economy without the ability to interfere with our basic rights. Californians don't want guns? Fine. I just don't want them to come to Florida, Georgia or Oklahoma and tell us how to live.

Besides, doesn't Texas give more money to the government then they get back?

Not sure we are disagreeing about anything in principle I, as a former NYer, get annoyed at folks who will take NYers and Californians to task (correctly IMHO) for engaging in blatant attempts to force cultural issues using the "we're bigger and know better" rationale while failing to see that many States, like OK, are on-balance net gainers from income transfers and blatant users of farm subsidies.

 

[Frederick]

Why do people always think things were better before the direct election of senators?

the assumption that a senator appointed by the State legislature would be more interested in the interests of the State than in the people who elected them, i guess. I'd say more than half, easily, of states in the Union are conservative. Because the most liberal states are the largest, and they get the same amount of senators that Oklahoma does.

Why is it that half the senate is democrat when 3/5 states are conservative?

 

[donner]

the assumption that a senator appointed by the State legislature would be more interested in the interests of the State than in the people who elected them, i guess. I'd say more than half, easily, of states in the Union are conservative. Because the most liberal states are the largest, and they get the same amount of senators that Oklahoma does.

Why is it that half the senate is democrat when 3/5 states are conservative?

First, part of that has to do with how well GOP controlled legislators have done in gerrymandering to remain in power on the state level in terms of them being 'conservative'.

Also, the theory of state power was great, but in practice it was really party power. Party bosses controlled who got elected and who didn't, not the 'state'.

And as you noted, the point is equal representation for each state. If some states choose to split votes, so be it. That is probably a more accurate reflection of the state's voting makeup than if the legislator alone chose. Is it not?

 

[mugsy]

Why do people always complain about the direct election of senators?

Because the 17th Amendment essentially undid the careful balance of Federalism that the Framers had crafted. There are many things that occur today, such as the blatant use of Federal taxing power and "incentives" (really cloaked punishments) to coerce the States into desired actions that were much more difficult to do prior to the States (as political entities) having direct representation in the Federal legislature.

 

[Frederick]

Not sure we are disagreeing about anything in principle I, as a former NYer, get annoyed at folks who will take NYers and Californians to task (correctly IMHO) for engaging in blatant attempts to force cultural issues using the "we're bigger and know better" rationale while failing to see that many States, like OK, are on-balance net gainers from income transfers and blatant users of farm subsidies.

I don't have a problem with new yorkers or californians, i think they're right to run their state how they want to run it. I just think they should run their own state and not ours.

I'd say a lot of red states tend to also be more rural states

First, part of that has to do with how well GOP controlled legislators have done in gerrymandering to remain in power on the state level in terms of them being 'conservative'.

Also, the theory of state power was great, but in practice it was really party power. Party bosses controlled who got elected and who didn't, not the 'state'.

And as you noted, the point is equal representation for each state. If some states choose to split votes, so be it. That is probably a more accurate reflection of the state's voting makeup than if the legislator alone chose. Is it not?

Yes, but if 3/5ths of the states are conservative, would it not be in the interests of the State that the representatives of the State represented the majority opinion of that State, not the split nature of the electorate of that state?

Why should Oklahoma, for example, have a democrat senator and a Republican senator, when 66% of the state voted for the Republican party the last 30 years? does having a democrat senator represent the interests of the state, just because a minority of the State is not conservative?

the Senate should give each state equal representation based on the majority opinion of the State, the interests of the State, otherwise it's just a smaller House.

 

[druryj]

If you've got a problem with my opinion, you're free to contest it.

Or not.



If that's how you choose to deal with opposing opinions, that's your right.

Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[donner]

Yes, but if 3/5ths of the states are conservative, would it not be in the interests of the State that the representatives of the State represented the majority opinion of that State, not the split nature of the electorate of that state?

Why should Oklahoma, for example, have a democrat senator and a Republican senator, when 66% of the state voted for the Republican party the last 30 years? does having a democrat senator represent the interests of the state, just because a minority of the State is not conservative?

the Senate should give each state equal representation based on the majority opinion of the State, the interests of the State, otherwise it's just a smaller House.

If the 'majority' opinion of the state is conservative then why did the state elect someone who isn't a conservative? The way that sate legislatures draw districts means that it's easier to create situations where the state appears conservative, when it might not be as lopsided as you think it is. Gerrymandering your way into control of a state has been a pretty popular activity lately.

If enough people in a state elect a democratic senator then clearly a majority of those voters who feel that person represents their views or they like that person for elected office.

But as i said, historically non-direct elections of senators gave party bosses the power, not 'the state' per se. One reason TR and the 'New Nationalism' supported their direct elections

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Why do people always think things were better before the direct election of senators?

Because with the direct election of senators, we end up with two houses of representatives and no senate. The state governments no longer have a voice in the feral(federal) government. The several senators are no longer answerable to the several state legislatures. As it stands right now, the feral government is no longer that of a republic. It can only be described as a democracy, and the most numerous and less prosperous faction of the population is feeding off the less numerous prosperous of us. The prosperous are being bled dry and sooner than later, regardless of how much money the Fed "creates", it will collapse.

There is a hoard of reasons why getting back onto the Constitution as it was originally designed is the best thing we can do for ourselves and our posterity. I fear we'll be slaves to the state before too long. Our only hope is to get back where we belong via the political arena lest we do it on the battlefield. I pray for the former, but I prepare for the latter.

Woody