First it the 14th amendment NOW they want to get rid of the 17th amendment.

[redirish28]

Keep in mind people Bush Administration basically destroyed the first 10 amendments with the Military act of 2006.


Than the GOP is getting people yelling for the end of the 14th amendment which gave people born in the country the right of citizenship.


NOW I read about this:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/louisiana-republicans-agree-scrap-birthright-citizenship-17th-amendment.php?ref=fpb


"
At a Tea Party-sponsored debate in Louisiana last night, two House Republican hopefuls found a great deal of common ground. According to the Advocate, both support repealing the section of the 14th amendment establishing birthright citizenship. Both would repeal the 17th amendment, allowing for direct election of U.S. Senators. Both would like to cut, and limit access to, Medicare and Social Security, letting charity organizations fill the gaps.

The two candidates -- Jeff Landry and Kristian Magar -- are vying to replace House Democrat Charlie Melancon of Louisiana's third district. They have third opponent as well: one-time Democrat, and former Louisiana House Speaker Hunt Downer, who didn't attend the debate. Downer is well liked, with broader appeal than his conservative rivals, but a recent change to Louisiana election law means that only registered Republicans can vote in the primary. And in Louisiana -- and the third district -- that's a minority of deeply conservative voters.

"

Now keep in mind the 17th reads as such:

"established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which Senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, to be consistent with the method of election. It was adopted on April 8, 1913.
"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution



It really makes me wonder who is really coming up with these ideas --Fat Cat Corporate/Bankers "think tanks" who are thinking if we slip say a few thousand dollars to a few State Senators they would save more money in the long run than actually funneling money to State Campaigns.

What Amendment are they going to go after next? (As my wife demanded)

Should we really be taken this view point more seriously and look at what is behind this motivation?

[dflprincess]

1. Keep in mind these are the same brainiacs who think Net Neutrality violates their free speech

They really are such useful tools of the ruling class

[last_texas_dem]

2. Yeah, the 17th amendment caught the wingnut fringe's eyes

a while back. I know that Glenn Beck was talking about getting rid of that one a few months ago. See, the 17th Amendment was part of those "Progressive Era" amendments, and anything with the word "progressive" in it is evil, don'cha know?

It's all about going back to what the "Founders" represented, of course- whatever in the hell that was. But if these guys weren't the loudmouthed chickenshits they've already proven themselves to be, and if they were *really* all about abolishing anything "progressive", and really wanted to go back to the way the Founders intended- why aren't they proposing abolishing the *19th* Amendment. I'll eat my hat if these hypocrites *ever* bring that one up!

[Botany]

3. Just blather from the right, nothing can be done to the Constitution w/out ..

..... a Constitutional Convention.


Check out the tea bagger's latest national meet up in Philly.

[CTyankee]

4. Can you tell me what there rationale for repealing the 17th amendment is?

It is such a curtailment of the people's franchise, I don't really see how this can be rationalized...

[Botany]

5. Let me get out a chalkboard and show why this is a good idea.

This is just sound bite blather nothing can be changed w/out a constitutional convention and nothing can
be added w/ out being a Constitutional Amendment which is very hard to do.

[CTyankee]

6. Surely there is a RW talking point out there somewhere that doesn't

involve the chalk board route...

[Jim__]

7. Beck was the first one I heard talking about it. Here's a bit of his spiel.

The 17th Amendment changed that and instituted direct popular election of United States senators: Two senators from each state, elected by the people. And since that time, states have had no direct representation in Washington.

In 1821, Thomas Jefferson warned: "When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

Progressives will tell you that the change was needed because the states were becoming too corrupt. Well, what's happened since? It allowed special interests to lobby senators directly, cutting out the middleman of the state legislatures.

Has anyone else noticed that senators routinely get large influxes of campaign cash from outside the state? Remember Chris Dodd? I didn’t know anyone in Connecticut who was ready to give money to Chris Dodd. Yet he was getting tons of cash nationally. How is that representative of Connecticut?

more ...

At least that's what he was saying on that particular day. The real reason? Probably corporations can more easily control state senators.

[CTyankee]

9. I wonder why Beck thinks that the state senators are more immune from

out of state influences than those elected by the state's citizens?

[brooklynite]

13. There's a simple explanation (by their standards)...

Because Senators are elected statewide, they lose touch with "the people" and go to Washington and become part of the "National" Government. If they were appointed by the stalwart members of the State Legislature they'd be forever beholden to State needs and issues.

[zipplewrath]

8. I understand why

It was a major shift to the balance of power between the federal and state government. I've thought about this more than once myself.

But flat out appeal is pointless. There are reasons that the amendment passed (remember, the states voted on it). All one has to do is look at the fiasco around Blagojevich to understand the level of corruption that used to exist in senate "elections".

If someone wants to discuss ways to improve our senatorial elections, and rebalance the power between the feds and states, I'm all for it. But merely repealing the 17th is a sure loser.

[SlimJimmy]

10. Agreed. The outright repeal of the 17th ammendment

is not going to happen, and would not be a good idea. But we still need to look at the undue (and out of state) influence corporations and other lobbyist groups have on US Senate elections.

[spin]

11. Exactly. Corruption at the state level led to the 17th Amendment. (n/t)

[damntexdem]

12. Well, after all, the only important amendment is the 2nd.

And maybe limited parts of the 1st.

;-)

[Angry Dragon]

14. +1000